Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Kids, when the food runs out you either eat the person next to you or they eat you. We’ve spent 40,000 odd years trying to build a society that can shield us from ever having to make that choice and we don’t like to think about it- but most people are eaters not eaten. That’s why you’re here. That’s why a chain of organisms that led to you through generations of breeding were able to persist to this day- they did everything they needed to do to fuck and survive- and some were just lucky and didn’t have to do much so some of you are moist and when the eating starts you are the main course.
That same spirit lives in all of us and comes out whenever we deal with any resource. We give freely what we see as inexhaustible or in excess of our desires and we hoard and kill to keep what we value or see as scarce and precious.
That same spirit lives in all of us and comes out whenever we deal with any resource. We give freely what we see as inexhaustible or in excess of our desires and we hoard and kill to keep what we value or see as scarce and precious.
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
The only people 9/10 times who leave anything for anyone else either don’t want the thing they left very much or lack the power or will to take it without consequences or concerns.
If you won a billion dollars tomorrow you probably wouldn’t give it all away to people who need it more and even if you gave some or lost away you’d likely take care of you and your people first. A treat for yourself, pay off the house, a college fund for little Johnny or a house for mom and dad or a vacation or whatever. You’d justify it as your little indulgence next to the scope of charity you’ve given.
If you won a billion dollars tomorrow you probably wouldn’t give it all away to people who need it more and even if you gave some or lost away you’d likely take care of you and your people first. A treat for yourself, pay off the house, a college fund for little Johnny or a house for mom and dad or a vacation or whatever. You’d justify it as your little indulgence next to the scope of charity you’ve given.
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Are you in the habit of going down to the homeless camp and telling someone long term living there that they can have the keys to your place and all your clothes and your car and your bank accounts and you’ll take their stuff and live their life so that they can have a break from suffering because you’ve had it good for awhile so it is only fair? No. Likely not. Because of course you care more about where you live and what you eat and or family than them or theirs. It’s your self interest.
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
And they’d say they don’t know, or because they wanted cookies. And I’d say- exactly.
Because 99% of people will choose to get their kid into college instead of yours.
99% of people don’t care more than a single tear or some pocket change in a jar about you. Almost no one cares as much about you as they do themselves and the same is true of you. You’ll help your friend over a stranger and for all the people and families that have spent years or decades with less than you or practically nothing- how many times have you ever traded them?
Because 99% of people will choose to get their kid into college instead of yours.
99% of people don’t care more than a single tear or some pocket change in a jar about you. Almost no one cares as much about you as they do themselves and the same is true of you. You’ll help your friend over a stranger and for all the people and families that have spent years or decades with less than you or practically nothing- how many times have you ever traded them?
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
So the way I can explain it is like this to a kindergartener.
You have been lied to.
They told you to take turns, share, not bring something if you don’t have enough for everyone.
That isn’t the way the world works.
I’d put out 10 cookies for 20 kids and then tell them all to take as many as they think is fair. I’d let them all do that and see what the world is like, and then I’d go around and take all the cookies I wanted and eat them in front of them and say to fight over what was left or try and stop me. They couldn’t stop me. And I’d explain to them that they can’t stop me because I have all the power and they can’t stop me. I’d ask them if that is fair. Then I’d shame any child that took more than half a cookie earlier and ask them if it isn’t fair, why did THEY take more when they had the power?
You have been lied to.
They told you to take turns, share, not bring something if you don’t have enough for everyone.
That isn’t the way the world works.
I’d put out 10 cookies for 20 kids and then tell them all to take as many as they think is fair. I’d let them all do that and see what the world is like, and then I’d go around and take all the cookies I wanted and eat them in front of them and say to fight over what was left or try and stop me. They couldn’t stop me. And I’d explain to them that they can’t stop me because I have all the power and they can’t stop me. I’d ask them if that is fair. Then I’d shame any child that took more than half a cookie earlier and ask them if it isn’t fair, why did THEY take more when they had the power?
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
shares at 18 and you waited until you were 26 and sold yours at $150k and bought a house and an engagement ring, neither of those would likely outperform those same 100 shares now.
So just giving stock doesn’t cut it and it isn’t really… it’s worthless unless you can find a buyer and the value changes. If I give you $200 in stock today it could be $1000 tomorrow or $4 tomorrow or a week or 10.
So then Bob and Jane have the same job. Jane started near the company start and was given 10000 shares worth $5000 as her cost of living bonus. Say they are worth $4.5 million now.
Bob starts now. Do you give him the same 10000 shares Jane got- so she received $5000 and he received 4.5 million? Do you give him $5000 in stock at todays value- let’s say that is 1 share. Round it off.
But if the stock goes up $1 in value Jane makes $10,000 in wealth and Bob makes… $1. That’s hardly equal is it?
1
So just giving stock doesn’t cut it and it isn’t really… it’s worthless unless you can find a buyer and the value changes. If I give you $200 in stock today it could be $1000 tomorrow or $4 tomorrow or a week or 10.
So then Bob and Jane have the same job. Jane started near the company start and was given 10000 shares worth $5000 as her cost of living bonus. Say they are worth $4.5 million now.
Bob starts now. Do you give him the same 10000 shares Jane got- so she received $5000 and he received 4.5 million? Do you give him $5000 in stock at todays value- let’s say that is 1 share. Round it off.
But if the stock goes up $1 in value Jane makes $10,000 in wealth and Bob makes… $1. That’s hardly equal is it?
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
If we go after all the billionaires why we might be able to give each person on earth a couple hundred, maybe a couple thousand dollars.
It seems that an obvious solution would be to give employees stock- partial ownership in the company. Of course many companies do this already- core problems include:
- stock value isn’t liquid. You can’t spend it unless you sell the stock.
- stocks complicate taxes and finances generally and many employees most at need for cost of living adjustments don’t have the knowledge to navigate the matter themselves without significant personal risk.
- people can sell their stocks and miss the big wave. If you started at Amazon at 18 and got 100 shares and sold them for $5000 to buy a car to show off.. that wouldn’t help your cost of living at 26 most likely because the stocks are gone and the car likely has t appreciated significantly or at all. Likely it’s lost you lots of money over the stock value. If you laughed at your coworker who sold their
1
It seems that an obvious solution would be to give employees stock- partial ownership in the company. Of course many companies do this already- core problems include:
- stock value isn’t liquid. You can’t spend it unless you sell the stock.
- stocks complicate taxes and finances generally and many employees most at need for cost of living adjustments don’t have the knowledge to navigate the matter themselves without significant personal risk.
- people can sell their stocks and miss the big wave. If you started at Amazon at 18 and got 100 shares and sold them for $5000 to buy a car to show off.. that wouldn’t help your cost of living at 26 most likely because the stocks are gone and the car likely has t appreciated significantly or at all. Likely it’s lost you lots of money over the stock value. If you laughed at your coworker who sold their
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
So being paid in a lump sum might actually hurt more than it helps for many. It is a well documented phenomenon among lottery winners and contest winners for example who suddenly come into relative large sums that often they lose that money and may end up worse off. But ignoring the hypothetical- the math just doesn’t work out. If we expand to a global scale, selling Bezos entire fortune stocks and all pits about $20 in each persons hands. A one time payment of $20.
1
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
But again- how much of that money makes it to how many people? Let’s do the entire fortune. Let’s sell everything the man owns including his stocks and leave him penniless. That gives us a much more meaningful $100,000 (round numbers) ONE TIME payment to all Amazon workers currently employed. Or 10,000 a year for 10 years, or $4.81 an hour. Before taxes.
So figure you’ll keep about half or so. That’s enough to be life changing to the poorest workers perhaps. For many in popular dense areas that won’t but a house or allow them to buy a house near their work.
Also consider that if May negatively impact things like tax bracket and any aid from government assistance like food stamps or housing assistance to student fee waivers, grants, loans, subsidized medical care etc.
for the worker and possibly for any children who might be on public medical or looking for college fee waivers and low income grants etc.
▼
So figure you’ll keep about half or so. That’s enough to be life changing to the poorest workers perhaps. For many in popular dense areas that won’t but a house or allow them to buy a house near their work.
Also consider that if May negatively impact things like tax bracket and any aid from government assistance like food stamps or housing assistance to student fee waivers, grants, loans, subsidized medical care etc.
for the worker and possibly for any children who might be on public medical or looking for college fee waivers and low income grants etc.
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
own to give each Amazon’s worker a sub $1 an hour raise? You probably would not and you probably have much less you’d be losing- meaning that you giving up all you owned to give them a raise is a greater cost to benefit ratio hypothetically. But you likely wouldn’t do it if a genie gave you the option. Do I need to explain why you wouldn’t? You already know.
You give a dollar to a charity maybe or $500 at a dinner or $1000 once a year perhaps or just here and there. Because it’s easy. It doesn’t really require any sacrifice on your part and you feel good about it.
Bezos will give $100 million to a school or for some charity and it won’t really hurt him and he’ll feel good about it. He’s given more to charity in a year than most anyone will in their lifetime- he just has a lot more than you or I so he can give more but still afford a space ship. For many people giving $500 to charity would mean not eating or paying rent.
You give a dollar to a charity maybe or $500 at a dinner or $1000 once a year perhaps or just here and there. Because it’s easy. It doesn’t really require any sacrifice on your part and you feel good about it.
Bezos will give $100 million to a school or for some charity and it won’t really hurt him and he’ll feel good about it. He’s given more to charity in a year than most anyone will in their lifetime- he just has a lot more than you or I so he can give more but still afford a space ship. For many people giving $500 to charity would mean not eating or paying rent.
Yeah, what's up with that? 15 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Well, let’s use Jeff Bezos. If we ignore his Amazon stocks, since those aren’t money until sold and the value fluctuates, and selling those stocks would mean he doesn’t own Amazon- which then removes him as having an obligation to Amazon-
The man has about $25 billion in personal wealth by public figures in rough numbers. Actual money and property- rocketships and yachts and such.
If he were to liquidate all his personal wealth for face value of $25 billion and divide that up between all his companies employees it would equal a one time payment of less than $17,000. If we amortize that one time payment into the form of an anual raise and spread that raise over 10 years, each CURRENT Amazon employee who worked there would receive a $1700 anual raise for 10 years, or roughly a little over $100 a month. Yay. We solved poverty. $100 a month- less than $1 an hour raise on average full time hours- is just the cost of living increase desperately needed. Would you give up everything you
▼
The man has about $25 billion in personal wealth by public figures in rough numbers. Actual money and property- rocketships and yachts and such.
If he were to liquidate all his personal wealth for face value of $25 billion and divide that up between all his companies employees it would equal a one time payment of less than $17,000. If we amortize that one time payment into the form of an anual raise and spread that raise over 10 years, each CURRENT Amazon employee who worked there would receive a $1700 anual raise for 10 years, or roughly a little over $100 a month. Yay. We solved poverty. $100 a month- less than $1 an hour raise on average full time hours- is just the cost of living increase desperately needed. Would you give up everything you
A tale of two power grids 17 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
So indeed- focusing on gross polluters over the sorts of often silly or even counter productive (to the agenda of environmental benefit, not to the agendas behind such initiatives) things we often do is not prudent.
But people don’t like change in general and don’t like to give things up.
So they try to find changes that on an individual and systemic level will produce the least “pinch” or disruption. The spice must flow, the rich bastards want their billions and the upper middle class bastards want their millions and all the other bastards want distractions and comforts and all of them all the time.
AC can be a comfort but for many- especially the elderly or those at risk- heat can kill, so it can also be a necessity. Those who can do without certain things likely should. That said- bastards are very bad at distinguishing want from need.
But people don’t like change in general and don’t like to give things up.
So they try to find changes that on an individual and systemic level will produce the least “pinch” or disruption. The spice must flow, the rich bastards want their billions and the upper middle class bastards want their millions and all the other bastards want distractions and comforts and all of them all the time.
AC can be a comfort but for many- especially the elderly or those at risk- heat can kill, so it can also be a necessity. Those who can do without certain things likely should. That said- bastards are very bad at distinguishing want from need.
A tale of two power grids 17 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
For frame of reference a traditional ship- not some ultra efficient modern “green ship” or some nuclear powered thing or sail boat- can undertake the same journey and the flight will pollute 20x more and carry less people.
So while industry and the mega wealthy are prime targets and should be focused on, this ain’t a case where the “average” citizen of a developed nation is small potatoes. If we look at a single snapshot of Americans- where 90% will fly at least once, that’s almost 300 million years worth of individual pollution added to the environment for what is largely non essential travel. And of course many Americans travel for business and pleasure frequently.
So while industry and the mega wealthy are prime targets and should be focused on, this ain’t a case where the “average” citizen of a developed nation is small potatoes. If we look at a single snapshot of Americans- where 90% will fly at least once, that’s almost 300 million years worth of individual pollution added to the environment for what is largely non essential travel. And of course many Americans travel for business and pleasure frequently.
A tale of two power grids 17 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
But by the same token it is in theory far easier to regulate the actions or change the social values of the small groups that have the most control over these things and the utmost wealth than it is to regulate or “enlighten” several billion people as individuals to act thoughtfully.
So it is largely prudent to tackle those “elite” few and move down the chain from there.
While examinations of ideas like wealth distribution and such show is that there is little of any practical per person benefit to targeting the wealthy- it is true that a single factory can produce more environmental impact or pollution in a day than some people will in a lifetime.
It is also true that merely removing a single cross continental flight can offset the pollution of quite a few people. One transatlantic flight for one person can easily be greater than or equal to all their other polluting behaviors in an average year.
So it is largely prudent to tackle those “elite” few and move down the chain from there.
While examinations of ideas like wealth distribution and such show is that there is little of any practical per person benefit to targeting the wealthy- it is true that a single factory can produce more environmental impact or pollution in a day than some people will in a lifetime.
It is also true that merely removing a single cross continental flight can offset the pollution of quite a few people. One transatlantic flight for one person can easily be greater than or equal to all their other polluting behaviors in an average year.
A tale of two power grids 17 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
I won’t go on a tangent of consumerism and how yes, often they make products etc. and then create the need or desire for them versus making them based off demand- but either way you slice it, the critical link in that chain is you and I and our peers who are feeding and training the beast. Capitalism gets a lot of hate because capitalism is a mirror and shows us ourselves, and many do not like what we see.
So on the one hand it is convenient to pin it on the “elite,” most revolutions in history have overthrown the rich bastards and replaced them with leaders who inevitably became rich bastards themselves or already were rich bastards- or at least bastards without the money to be the assholes that their nature intended them to be.
So on the one hand it is convenient to pin it on the “elite,” most revolutions in history have overthrown the rich bastards and replaced them with leaders who inevitably became rich bastards themselves or already were rich bastards- or at least bastards without the money to be the assholes that their nature intended them to be.
A tale of two power grids 17 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
@catfluff- agreed. The problems start when we realize that almost all of us are rich bastards though. Perhaps not rich corporate bastards, and perhaps we don’t feel rich, but the general citizens of several developed countries, even those seeing themselves as struggling or poor, comprise the 1% of the global elite in population in terms of wealth and material quality of life.
Less than 20% of the worlds population will ever set foot on an airplane and take flight. Contrast that to 90% of Americans who have flown or will fly in their lifetimes.
A very small percentage of the global population consumes a majority of the worlds resources, and while among us the rich corporate bastards and such are the lions share. Of course- as far as industry goes that is largely to feed our appetites. They don’t run giant factories to make things that people don’t buy- or not for long generally.
Less than 20% of the worlds population will ever set foot on an airplane and take flight. Contrast that to 90% of Americans who have flown or will fly in their lifetimes.
A very small percentage of the global population consumes a majority of the worlds resources, and while among us the rich corporate bastards and such are the lions share. Of course- as far as industry goes that is largely to feed our appetites. They don’t run giant factories to make things that people don’t buy- or not for long generally.
A tale of two power grids 17 comments
You're not pro life just anti-abortion 3 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
We set moral boundaries for others to appease our own guilt or support our own delusions of our morality and behavior being deeply ethically flawed.
2
You're not pro life just anti-abortion 3 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
The precedent exists for pragmatic termination - happens in prisons all the time. And you can say this state or that or you don’t approve of the death penalty- very high minded of you- but police still carry guns don’t they’ve many people still own guns. So you will kill or be ok with someone else killing to protect you, or even just your property.
So few people can really claim such lofty virtue as being “pro life.” The argument is that a fetus hasn’t done anything wrong- but ending a life because someone did wrong is not “pro life,” it’s “pro order.” You believe that as retribution or to set an example that we can take lives. Of course a fetus not being a “human life” should end that debate but somehow it doesn’t for many. Largely because there is little to nonsensical basis to the argument and it’s just flailing arms and emotions and primate reflex.
2
So few people can really claim such lofty virtue as being “pro life.” The argument is that a fetus hasn’t done anything wrong- but ending a life because someone did wrong is not “pro life,” it’s “pro order.” You believe that as retribution or to set an example that we can take lives. Of course a fetus not being a “human life” should end that debate but somehow it doesn’t for many. Largely because there is little to nonsensical basis to the argument and it’s just flailing arms and emotions and primate reflex.
You're not pro life just anti-abortion 3 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
It’s kinda crazy because there happens to be a HUGE overlap between the sorts of people who say things like “I don’t know why my taxes have to pay for your kid, if you can’t afford kids don’t have them!” And the sorts of people who say:
“Ban abortion!”
Like…. If you don’t want them to have kids you have to pay for… you should probably make methods available to reduce the number of kids you have to pay for… that’s sort of obvious.
Like what are you going to do, fine people who “can’t afford” kids? Who would that help, and if they had money to pay fines.. wouldn’t they use it on their kids?
You can’t unfertilize an egg. It’s easy to say abstain or use birth control but shit happens, people make mistakes or choices that don’t go as planned etc. and you can’t un Mountain Dew what been mountain done.
So…. I dunnoh.
2
“Ban abortion!”
Like…. If you don’t want them to have kids you have to pay for… you should probably make methods available to reduce the number of kids you have to pay for… that’s sort of obvious.
Like what are you going to do, fine people who “can’t afford” kids? Who would that help, and if they had money to pay fines.. wouldn’t they use it on their kids?
You can’t unfertilize an egg. It’s easy to say abstain or use birth control but shit happens, people make mistakes or choices that don’t go as planned etc. and you can’t un Mountain Dew what been mountain done.
So…. I dunnoh.
A tale of two power grids 17 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
So instead of a focus on “having it all,” I favor a general cultural, social, and if necessary, legal compulsion to prioritize. Go travel the world and release massive pollution from your transportation and such for no good reason except self indulgence and “experience” that dies with you and leaves no tangible trace for the future. Be selfish, globe trotters. But when you get home you’ll have a lot of days without heat or AC, a lot of walking and bicycling vs. Driving, because you’ve used up a lot of points. That’s sort of the rough outline anyway. No idea how to actually implement or score it- but I like the idea. Choose what matters to you and narrow our scope on what we have and do.
A tale of two power grids 17 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
circumstances are.
Of course I favor some sort of prohibitively complex and difficult to quantify system of “points” where in regardless of wealth all people are allocated points. Each action of impact has a points value. Drive a 7 person suv alone or roll coal of you want- but that will leave you few points for plastic straws or AC or steal dinners. Leave the lights on, fill your pool, water your lawn. It’s a numbers game. As the global population increases and the standard of living does, the total resources can’t keep up and still be allocated in the same amount to each person. We need less people or less use of resources, but if 7 billion people all throw one piece of small trash on the ground, it’s still a big problem. Our individual impact is magnified by sheer numbers.
Of course I favor some sort of prohibitively complex and difficult to quantify system of “points” where in regardless of wealth all people are allocated points. Each action of impact has a points value. Drive a 7 person suv alone or roll coal of you want- but that will leave you few points for plastic straws or AC or steal dinners. Leave the lights on, fill your pool, water your lawn. It’s a numbers game. As the global population increases and the standard of living does, the total resources can’t keep up and still be allocated in the same amount to each person. We need less people or less use of resources, but if 7 billion people all throw one piece of small trash on the ground, it’s still a big problem. Our individual impact is magnified by sheer numbers.
A tale of two power grids 17 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Like I said, I have never had or used AC in my homes and I have only ever owned 3 cars that had it and I didn’t remove it. So to each their own. You know what it is like for you- the fact it isn’t a problem for you automatically means you obviously haven’t encountered a situation where you had need or a strong enough feeling of need to operate your AC for more than a few hours a day.
I have long qualified for a handicapped parking placard, but I do not have one. I Park in regular Spaces and walk. I feel perfectly able to.
Were I to see someone in my same or similar condition who did use one, it wouldn’t make much sense to admonish them and tell them that if I can walk they can. How do I know what they can handle? Our circumstances may be similar or the same, but not identical. And we are not identical. So I don’t disagree in that I find AC wasteful and overused, but I do disagree in that I can’t dictate to everyone else what their tolerances or needs or perceptions or
1
I have long qualified for a handicapped parking placard, but I do not have one. I Park in regular Spaces and walk. I feel perfectly able to.
Were I to see someone in my same or similar condition who did use one, it wouldn’t make much sense to admonish them and tell them that if I can walk they can. How do I know what they can handle? Our circumstances may be similar or the same, but not identical. And we are not identical. So I don’t disagree in that I find AC wasteful and overused, but I do disagree in that I can’t dictate to everyone else what their tolerances or needs or perceptions or
People who can do math aren’t mad that billionaires don’t t share their wealth with everyone. They are mad that billionaire don’t share their wealth with THEM.
Elon Musk could give every stranger he met $100,000 for a day and not really take a hit to his wealth, or one he can’t bounce back from. But every stranger he met wouldn’t even be 1% of a single city in a state in a country on a continent on this earth.