>>73359827
here is your free (you) commie
>>73359827
Because I'm a part of the 1% and I'm a selfish bastard. Give me one reason to give away my money.
>>73359827
Reminder: the labour theory of value is wrong and always will be.
Natural effort and skill inequality
>>73359827
I don't entirely. But then I see niggers on EBT, using white, non-kike tax dollars to continue nigging and killing white people.
>>73360578
Thanks to the 1 percent manipulating the markets/government/currency .
>>73359827
Because goods and services are worth as much as people decide they are, and people have decided running a multinational company is worth more than sweeping floors.
>>73360459
Because it makes it less likely that the poor will overthrow the current society and turn it into a shittier one
>>73360459
First of all, you're not part of the 1%. Second of all if you were the reason would be: redistribute the wealth or we will force you to. Trumps already got it going with his protectionism. Why do you think the neocon bankerfags are so pissed?
Because without rich people there will be no jobs and no economy for the poor people to generate money from and spend money in.
>>73359827
Oh also, the top 1% is all kikes, but we're not allowed to remove bagel.
>>73359827
die commie
>>73359827
Why do liberals defend giving money to niggers ?
>>73359827
Because it's a non issue.
>Rich people exist! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Furthermore, the solutions offered for it tend to "equalise" it by making EVERYBODY poor.
>>73360702
nice meme m8. Why was our economy better off in the 70's then when inequality was significantly lower than today?
>>73359827
>tfw mother was born into poverty, shopped at goodwill for clothes, was on food stamps, had like 5 siblings, had to drop out of college because parents couldn't afford it and she ended up making her own business and now makes $200k a year
Feels fucking COMFY, my mom is the quintessential American dream and poor fuckers are poor because of a combination of a bad work ethic and not working smart
No they cannot. That is why we need a trusted, hardy tested democrat at the helm. Look into Hillary's record anons, she is our woman!
>>73360816
Nice meme m8. What has income inequality got to do with the general economy?
>>73360459
God I just love it when some plain old richfag thinks that they are actually part of the 1%. So delusional.
>>73360816
No trade deal with China.
No NAFTA.
No TPP.
Spics kept their filthy asses in Mexico.
>>73359827
that map might as well be an accurate population density representation
Another reason: I view people who haven't ever held manual labour jobs as subhuman queers. This includes most of the 1% ergo they have no rights in my mind and I'm free to steal their wealth.
>>73359827
Because in an ideal capitalist society, people would strive for more than stocking shelves at Target or flipping burgers at Chili's. But we have such a dumbed down population who has no drive, expecting equal income to people who actually work hard.
>>73360880
My mom was the same except now she's jobless and lives in my grandma's shed.
>>73359827
>in bottom 50%
>have house, health insurance, an iPhone 6, two cars, plenty of disposable income
Even the "poor" in America live like kings. You have to be financially retarded not to succeed in this country
>>73359827
you gave them that money.
you reap what you sow.
>>73361003
It would suck to be poor in the USA. Usa just has excellent social mobility and opportunity to move up to middle class, but you're fucked if you're poor
>>73359827
americans love being fucked from behind by corporations
Conservatives suck the 1 percent's dicks because statistically if I tell you four things that are right you're more likely to support my fifth idea.
So first the 1% strokes Joe Redneck's cock about Jesus and Guns and Gay Marriage and Abortion. Then the 1% tells Joe that the rich pay too much taxes, and if Joe doesn't help stop this then liberals will take away his Jesus and his Guns.
>>73359827
Most of that "wealth" is in properties and other assets that would quickly devalue if every one of them was forced to sell them for redistribution (who would have the capital to buy them btw?).
So the numbers that made up that graph are grossly inflated for all practical purposes.
>>73360971
Yes because the only reason people take low wage job is because they are lazy subhuman leeches.
Please kill yourself and your family.
>>73359827
Because they're evil. What? Did the jewish religion not give it away?
>>73359827
There is literally nothing wrong with income inequality. The poorest quartile of people in countries with lots of economic freedom are still wealthier than people in the poorest quartile of people in countries without economic freedom.
The most insidious lie of socialism is that you can enact these vast government redistribution of wealth programs while maintaining the same amount of total wealth in your economy. Not sure. Government spending and influence kills your economy and the human spirit as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNtyV0CXfzU
Watch at 2:28
>>73359827
Income =/= Wealth.
Most wealth is intangible assets that are not liquid or fungible - i.e. they own stocks and shares, or companies or property, whose valuations are largely irrelevant and do not translate into liquid financial assets, aka, cash. Even those companies and shares do not translate into anywhere near as much - company incomes are not personal incomes, and share dividends are actually rare.
It's like having $1000 bucks or a single very shiny very valuable rock worth thousands of times more. You can do a lot with $1000, but you have to translate that shiny rock into cash first, and you are first off not going to find anyone who has enough to give you an equitable trade, but second, not going to find anyone who won't force you to take much much much less.
>>73361293
The thing about Americas system is that it benefits all mankind. wealth inequality is growing in the usa because now that we have globalism the rich can invest around the world and other people are willing to work harder and for less than americans, so people invest elsewhere. As the wealth gap between the USA and the rest of the world narrows, the rich will start investing domestically more because there's less benefits to investing offshore. A billion people have escaped poverty in the last 30 years. There's less starvation and malnutritioned than ever. Africa is finally industrialising thanks to foreign investment. Globalism and capitalism have been a net positive for people in general.
>>73361509
> Stefan "bootlicker " molyenshit
dropped
People are greedy shits and nothing will ever change. This is how the world has been for millennia.
I will never be rich even with my degree in CS, I will be a worker bee who's life is to provide for my captialist overlords, and to be happy with the measly scraps they give me.
And there's nothing I can do.
>>73359827
Communist bullshit diluted to make it not seem like communist bullshit
>>73361375
What's the other reason, you shit kebab?
>>73359827
People are not equal, why should their incomes be?
>>73361881
to get free micky dees you retárd
>>73361971
Turn off th Fox News dumbass
>>73362056
not an argument
>>73361868
American propaganda at work people
Income Inequality means nothing when the poorest among your people are still capable of driving around Bugattis. Rather than trying to reduce the high to barely lift the poor, why not try to help the poor rise to the high?
>>73361813
You can revolt. But then you wouldn't be able to shitpost in comfy threads for the rest of your life.
>>73359827
I hate this argument so fucking much.
1. The poor aren't poor because the rich are rich.
2. Taking things from people who earned more than you based solely on the fact that they earned more is asinine. Some people earn more than others. This is a fact.
Why the fuck do poor people feel entitled to the fruits of someone else labor?! Jesus Christ. This isn't how anything works anywhere! I baked 5 cookies, but he baked 100! He owes me cookies! I bought a small plot of land and be bought verdant pastures! He owes me land! My child got a D on the test but his child got an A! Distribute the points!
Do better at life! Stop being a fucking Gibsme!
>>73359827
>not a single blonde person
>graphic made by some shithaired spic
>>73359827
Because you have no claim to it.
>>73360672
Make a thousand black people hammer a car for five years. Try to sell that car for however much you think that labour was worth to other people.
Or if you want it to be a productive endeavour, make the same black people all build a single car in five years. Again, try to sell the car for however you think the labour is worth to other people.
>>73359827
Because at the end of the day all that matters is that niggers stay oppressed. Somehow income inequality one day pass wealth from the elite of the white race downwards to the common aryan.
>>73359827
Starving people in africa earn far less than you, you need to stick with your morals and give them more of your stuff.
>>73362457
Wealth redistribution from the bottom to the top so yes, in this case the rich is richer because the middle class and the poor became even poorer. When income inequality becomes too big then it's also bad for the economy. You need consumers in a consumer-based economy. The fact that you believe that the wealthy did nuffin wrong and they all deserve what they have is proof enough of your blindness to reality. You have no fucking idea what's happening to your damn country.
>>73362457
The rich steal from the poor
Hell, that's capitalism in a fucking nutshell.
I think reduced inheritance would give everyone a fair chance. stop the fucks who just have to inherit money. make people work for it
>>73360940
>implying NAFTA and TPP will not increase economic inequality
>>73361772
not an argument :)
>>73362876
In communism, man exploits fellow man.
In capitalism, it's the other way around.
>>73359827
what about the middle class and lower middle class
why arent more people middle and upper middle class?
here is why
the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM a product of SOCIALISM
why would someone get their child in a private school when its so much easier and cheaper to take them to PUBLIC SCHOOLS
i guarantee 50%+ of public school students will end up in the lower middle class or worse
probably a lot more though
public schooling is the problem
it needs to be abolished
nice shitpost though
>>73362457
> This isn't how anything works anywhere! I baked 5 cookies, but he baked 100! He owes me cookies! I bought a small plot of land and be bought verdant pastures! He owes me land! My child got a D on the test but his child got an A! Distribute the points!
>implying thats how it works
More like I worked all day doing something productive for 50k$ a year and getting taxed for like 50% of it while some rich banker crashes the economy multiple times a century and gets my tax money in bailouts.
>>73360682
The poor have never been able to touch the top 1%. At best a revolution will get the seconded richest people dragged into the streets, but richest ones are always out of reach.
The current economic situation is thanks to a slew of reasons, like globalization and neo-liberal economical policies enacted during the 70s and 80s, under the false pretense of making americans even more prosperous. The average american wage has actual fallen since the 80s, even though we're working more hours that before. This is some post-apocalyptic type shit we're heading towards.
This is western civilization collapsing under the greed of few and the complacency of many.
the reason there are more poor people than just not rich people is socialism
we need pure capitalism
socialist programs like public schools doom americas youth to failure at a terrifying rate
>>73359827
Daily reminder:
Equality of opportunity =/= equality of outcome.
>>73362457
The poor are poor because of decisions made by the rich. Who decided to outsource? Who decided to develop automation technology? We all live in a social contract. If society needs 20 of your 100 cookies to remain stable, then you'd better hand over those cookies buddy or you can get the fuck out. It's the way the world works.
>>73363312
socialism has killed equality of opportunity
>>73363312
What is all this Rayndian shitposting? Trump killed your faggot "traditional conservatism" Get with the times or get run over.
>>73363379
Chill out there mccarthy
>>73360661
This
>>73363176
Perhaps not, but it'll cause them to flee from their homes, from their possessions, and from their lives.
>>73359827
>Someone performs a hard job like heart surgury
>Should get paid the same as a photographer
This is what lefties actually believe
commies on this board reeeeeeee
>>73363176
The second richest are the people that actually worked for it you fucking monster.
>>73363558
Straya with intelligence discourse as always
>>73363558
I think all pay should be based on hard work ideally. There's no moral reason a marketing VP who does absolute shit should make more than a steelworker. Obviously it's difficult to get this put into practice from an economic standpoint.
People at the bottom make enough money to live a great life.
They're mad at the 1% because of jealously and nothing else. The 1% being rich doesn't take money away from the poor. It doesn't effect the poor.
They're just mad because they see some sort of an injustice, as if the the top 1% are living happy lives while other people are suffering. It's complete bullshit.
The reason the 1% make that much money isn't because ''oh shit, I need to make more money because I am greedy hurr I need more money!!!''. They do it because they need a lot of money to run their business.
They're not sitting on their big stack of cash laughing at poor people. They're investing the money and making their business grow.
>>73363342
>niggers are niggers because of whites
Same logic, doesn't make sense this way either.
Use your brain.
>>73363689
>Actually worked for it
I go to a top 10 uni. Trust me, the majority of the upper middle class got that way through nepotism.
>>73359827
Because if you work for your money, you should keep it. I own a small thrift store and as a business owner, fuck off. (Also we give people with MAGA hats discpunts. We don't put upna sign though, you have to do it as your own free will.)
>there are people in this thread who think that wealth is finite
>>73359827
who is Randy Coffey and who does he work for? who hired him to make this because I have seen the "US divided by wealth" picture many times before, a special interest group is funding this propaganda
>>73363816
Niggers would't be dirt poor if we still had manufacturing jobs. How does this not make sense? Are you arguing that everyone is equally intelligent? There are always going to be people who are dumber than average, and who have a hard time competing in the capitalist system. It is morally wrong to leave them behind.
>>73363780
Oh yeah? Really?
How do you explain the $500K cars, $20M mansions and attitude towards people with less wealth with complete contempt?
Oh.. you're only talking about people who receive 3x more than they ACTUALLY NEED, not 30x more. Right?
>>73359827
Could it have anything to do with the drastic decrease in the proportion of whites in this country?
>>73364045
What about expensive cars and houses, retard? What about them?
You people are mentally ill. You think someone is magically going to be happy if they can afford an expensive mansion? You're a fucking idiot.
>>73364158
Answer the question faggot.
Protip: You won't
>>73363901
It's certainly not infinite
Reading through Marx/Engel's Communist Manifesto, they still require a class of people to regulate their communism.
This means that the foundation of communism includes in it's core beliefs the very thing in which it is theorized to eliminate and that it is so necessary to have that communism cannot exist without it.
Communists are hypocrites. Hypocrites are of the same evil as liars and axe murderers.
>>73363342
its not like that though
the rich 1% making say 1000 cookies enough are forced to pay 90% of their cookies to "help the poor" but they cant create jobs at these wages, so, they cheat, and they dont pay their cookies, and they hoard their cookies in fear of losing all their cookies to the government
the government makes many programs with these cookies they dont even have and debt builds up destroying the economy
so the middle and upper middle class ends up paying the most cookies
even though they may be earning 100-150 cookies
they are forced to pay 50-75 cookies to pay for things they dont want to pay for like, other people who dont work for their cookies and dont pay cookies to the government and just sit on a comfy stack of about 75 cookies never having to work, the government sees so many people arent working, while that is because the government essentially says "you dont have to" but they think its because people are unfortunate and dont make enough money, so they take a little bit more of everyone elses cookies or in other words, just the middle and upper middle classes cookies, they make public schools where everyone of every cookie class can go learn to earn cookies
but the public schools teach to the test and even cheat to get more cookies from the government
the lowly paid teachers dont care about their job, and every student is taught the same thing the same way, millions of kids grow up braindead and the upper middle class fades away into the middle class and eventually into the lower class
at this point there is a low and high class
and the class divide tears the country apart
socialism is pretty much the cookie monster
>87 replies
>op still has one post
Sage this shill thread
>>73364218
There's nothing to explain. People buy stupid shit that they can afford.
You're complaining about people trying to get rid of their excess wealth by buying expensive crap they don't need.
>>73364089
Wealth is a much more dividing line than anything else, even more so that nationality and religion and especially more so than race.
i explained it please close this thread now mods
It's the fucking dream of being number one and stepping on your peers faces. Without that, nothing can progress.
>>73362308
7/10 too many straws
>>73364358
You're missing the point. What I'm saying is that the increase in spics and niggers in our country has resulted in more poverty and thus, more wealth inequality. If those spics and niggers did not exist, much of our income inequality would also disappear.
>>73359827
If you make over 30k USD a year congratulations you are in the top 1% of income.
Welcome to the capitalist class my friend.
>>73362308
le abbon strawmang argument
>>73364319
I'm not complaining about shit.
I asked you to explain the fact that these so called "people investing their wealth in their companies" also just happen to have stupidly extravagant lifestyles. To the point where people stop asking and just be awestruck at the point of it.
>there is no point
>you're the mentally ill one
>>73364552
they have these lifestyles because they are taxes 90%+ which they can NOT afford and keep up a business so they hoard their riches away from the government and cheat
then they get greedy
then shit gets shit
>>73359827
Because there will be poor always, pathetically struggling. Look at the good things you got.
The only way to raise the poor out 'poor' is by having our economy grow. There's not other way.
And fun fact. Our 'poor' are rich compared to the rest of the world. Maybe Le-Sha's son can only have an iPhone 4s, but at least he's not spending all day in a garbage dump scavenging for pennies a day.
>>73359827
I'm not against income inequality because in a free market in general resources get allocated to those to can utilize them best. People are not equal, get over it. That being said, our current crony capitalist system bothers me. The only way to fix it is to reduce the power of the government. Regulating business only hurts small competitors, hence more wealth will funnel to the top.
>>73364552
Why does someone who work minimum wage buy an iPhone? Why do they have a car? If they're living pay check to pay check and they are investing in their children, why do they have a TV?
Because you can fucking afford it. You're not using 100% of all money you make for one thing and one thing only.
You're a fucking idiot.
>>73364757
why does someone who works minimum wage try to support an independent life and a family?
>>73359827
People aren't equal.
>>73364737
What happens if most of the growth is sucked by the top 1%? The lower classes get only the crumbs. Remember that you had presidents who fucked up everything and started a redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. You have to reverse what has been done and you'll have a healthy consumer-based economy again.
>>73364024
says who? natural selection ain't just for evolution
>>73359827
Why do liberals think that income inequality is a problem? If you work hard, you get paid a lot.
Because they are dumb.
I thank God every day I was born in a working man's country.
the best forward is to kill poor people. most of them are minorities anyway. we'll kill two birds with one stone.
seriously. if we don't kill poor people these disgusting shits will take us back to socialism because if we don't succumb to them by giving more of our hard earned money via taxes they won't ever be satisfied.
the majority of poor people are thieves and leaches. they never ever ever take initiative and action instead they complain about the system.
gas them all. it's time.
>>73364737
This.
Communists are just fucking retarded. In America obesity is the number one killer. Think about that for a moment. 80% of people in poverty have air conditioning.
The proles will never revolt because they actually have it good. It's always the upper middle class unemployed bourgeois academicucks who want revolution.
>>73359827
Why should I a master in computer science programming make the same as a dirty nigger who flips burgers and shoots up heroin?
https://soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/lets-make-america-great-again
>>73364825
Because that's what minimum wage was invented for.
You're supposed to be able to get by on a wage that's at the minimum for a comfortable lifestyle.
>>73360736
Jewish population 16 million/world population 7.125 billion = .22% of entire world population. Granted, Jews are over represented but this is due to them being generally competent in highly skilled fields and having above average IQs. Your picture is not mathematically possible.
>>73364965
Why do you think planned parenthood is a thing?
>>73365016
minimum wage was invented for kicking blacks out of the workforce to make room for whites.
>>73364925
Because when the gap becomes too wide then the economy also gets worse. Income inequality will always exists but the gap must get shorter.
>>73365016
So you agree that the minimum wage should be a living wage?
>>73359827
Cause I like being poor, but richer than I would be under 'everyones an equal loser' communism.
>>73365021
Is it due to them being generally competent in highly skilled fields and having above average IQs? Or is it due to them being crafty, underhanded, lying manipulators who can easily steal a goy's work, discredit him, take the credit, then get the prize?
>>73365015
I have a better question.
Why should you make more?
>because muh work is more valuable
You can't prove this objectively. It's your opinion, not a fact. How convenient for you that YOU value your own work highly ;^)
You can make an argument that the free market interaction of supply and demand leads to you being paid more, but that doesn't justify free market interaction of supply and demand. All you're saying is "the system means I get paid more" and that's not a moral argument, it's a practical one. You have to argue that it is objectively right for you to be paid more, not just that you think it's right, or that you are paid more in practice.
Protip: you can't.
Philosophical positivism is god-tier.
>>73365121
I do agree that minimum wage should be livable.
>>73365071
It's clearly not working if there are 44 million niggers in America most of whom are poor.
I don't think rich people are in need of the poor anymore anyway and given that they are lazy and stupid there's no reason why they should exist. We can let robots do all the work.
>>73364045
The difference being those people who are "poor" in the US are rich as fuck compared to the rest of the world. The other difference being, most rich people earned that 30x, socialists like you think the poor should just have it given to them. This country has the highest financial mobility on the planet. If you work hard, you can make money. Socialism is the true control mechanism. If you can make it so that everyone is dependent on the State for their very survival (food stamps, welfare), then you OWN them. Giving them a job doesn't does the opposite, it empowers them.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the megacorporations that don't pay taxes too. The thing is, they only got that way because of Federal intervention, usually via regulations to drive out their competition. Not to mention these companies (Google, Facebook, Xerox, are good examples) will never be investigated for their shady tax dodging under a corrupt Obama IRS. Also, the vast majority of the "1%" is small business owners that can't afford to bribe lawmakers, people who earned their station in life with hard work and risk. They should also have their money taken and given to someone who did nothing?
>>73365015
You CS fucks think you're so smart, but all you do is glorified translation work. You wouldn't make it a day in chemical engineering.
>>73364757
>You're a fucking idiot.
You keep calling me this, but I keep showing you up as one.
I asked you to explain why these awesome rich people who invest in their own companies also have in their possession, things which are so grossly elaborate, and have lifestyles that involve flying to another country for "shopping", etc.
If you can't figure out that I'm implying they aren't investing ENOUGH if they can "afford" such extravagant lifestyles then you're the fucking idiot, you fucking idiot.
>>73365184
The former. There are a lot of Jewish doctors, lawyers, CPAs, etc. If you actually believe all Jews just steal and cheat their wealth you are a full retard.
>>73365353
By that logic poor people aren't investing enough in their own kids because they can afford iPhones.
You are an idiot.
Japan should be banned from posting. You faggots are worse than Canada.
>>73359827
Why should I ever accept a handout that I didn't earn and why should I ever give a handout that someone didn't earn?
I don't necessarily mind paying tribute to the community for legitimate things that help the community, like child rearing or paving the streets that I use every day, but please tell me why I need to give a portion of my paycheck that I earned for doing work at a rate that the market has deemed fair to fund someone's lifestyle that can't even sustain itself.
>>73365295
Those 44 million niggers are the reason why we have to pretend the income gap is a problem when in reality it's just spics and niggers being spics and niggers.
>>73364868
How exactly would it be 'sucked'?
If they take the money they earn from their companies, then it's their right to keep or spend it as they wish.
And it's not like crumbs of billions of dollars aren't exactly chump change.
>>73364868
Pay inequality is highest in hardline Communist countries. Soviet Russia, North Korea, Maoist China. In all of these countries 99% of the wealth was owned by like a DOZEN people. As opposed to 50% owned by 1% of the people, under our pseudo-socialist-capitalist system. Wealth disparity has only gone up in this country as we adapt more socialistic policy. The elites want everyone on welfare way more than they want everyone employed. If everyone is on welfare they lose incentive to work, they lose incentive to become upwardly mobile, incentive to ever become a threat.
Basically, the only time such few people can hoard so much wealth is when there is no free market. Otherwise competition is always going to take your customers away if you start fucking people over.
>>73361003
Shut up Bill Whittle! the Jews are responsible for ww2
>>73365016
the minimum wage was invented for renting out a room or living with someone else
this thread is solved pls stop responding
>>73365468
Oh, you're talking about "Jewish" people, not Jews.
I meant Ashkenazi Jews. You know, Zionists? ZOG?
>>73365498
What would be the best way to get rid of the poor (spics, niggers,rednecks) abortion is one good option, and we talked about it. However I think that sterilization of the poor would be also something else to consider. Maybe the rich can get together and develop a much more simpler, efficient and humane sterilization process and use it on the poor.
Yes, I'm taking the fucking bait.
>>73365223
>Why should you make more?
Fuck right off with that question. I should make more than someone sitting on their ass all day bitching about how poor they are while wiping their ass with job applications if I'm actually fucking working.
"Who are you to make more money than me?" Do you realize how pretentious this shit sounds? You're just as bad as these entitled millennials who think the world should be sucking their cock because they're mommy's little special snowflake.
>>because muh work is more valuable
>You can't prove this objectively. It's your opinion, not a fact.
negro, if I'm working as a engineer on a project to build a bridge for society, my time is infinitely more valuable than some deep fryer in the back of Wendy's. My time is more valuable because I fucking build things for society, and my pay reflects that.
>>73365481
>By that logic poor people aren't investing enough in their own kids because they can afford iPhones.
It's the SAME fucking argument, you douchebag. You're literally offering an opposing view that is the same as what mine is.
>You're a fucking idiot
>you should be banned from posting
Oh fuck off you tragic loser.
>>73365223
>that's not a moral argument, it's a practical one
Your mistake is considering moral arguments even relevant.
>>73359827
Because it's reality
It's necessary for infrastructure. Which is easier to use when making a hospital? 1 Billionaire or 1000000 people with 1000 dollars?
>>73365586
Well, one way would be to make """temporary""" sterilization a precondition to welfare. An alternative would be to force the wealthy (whites) to reproduce in proportion to their wealth. Next generation, thanks to inheritance, income becomes less unequal.
>>73360931
Earning about $200k (US) per year puts someone in the top 1% of earners.
That's middle to upper management depending on how generous your company is.
It's not all "millionayahs and billionayahs", Bernie.
>>73365615
Now you've just lost it. Can't even post a coherent thought.
What the fuck is wrong with you English teachers?
>>73365569
You're wrong and a faggot, pls go die in a corner.
Use google to figure out how you're wrong.
Google: Why was minimum wage created?
>>73365615
Fuck off you pathetic cuck.
WHITE PIGGU GO HOME
>>73365601
>I should make more than someone sitting on their ass all day bitching about how poor they are while wiping their ass with job applications if I'm actually fucking working.
Why?
>My time is more valuable because I fucking build things for society
Can you prove objectively that this is right? What if I said who cares about society? America is a blight on the world and the sooner it collapses the better. You should be fined for building bridges to aid a degenerate resource-wasting blob of a "human" organisation, not paid for it.
Also, your argument is that because you contribute more to society that therefore society ought to contribute more to you. This argument would probably be compelling to a lot of people if you could actually prove you are a net contributor to society, but some of the people who make the most money did so by taking enormously damaging risks that were absolutely not in the best interests of their companies or the financial sector, but were very much in the interests of themselves.
Are you going to defend their paychecks as well? Because if you are then you cannot use your argument without being a hypocrite.
>>73365634
Now THIS is a correct response.
>>73365121
> Income inequality will always exists but the gap must get shorter.
OF course. The worst way to do this is start giving everyone handouts. That just fucks over small businesses, which employ about 70% of my country, and it leaves the true "elites" who don't pay taxes already, still untouched. On top of that, it creates a disincentive to find a job, if you even can with all the small businesses closing down because of the high taxes required. It does the opposite of what you want to achieve.
>>73365581
The 1% are households making about 430k a year. This is easily two middle aged professionals. It's not unheard of for a single doctor to make 400k or more a year. I've done returns for one partner at an international law firm making 1.5 million a year.
>>73365760
It was created to buy votes, idiot.
>>73360578
It's not that it's wrong. It just depends on what exactly is being produced or even serviced.
>>73365760
So the government can collect more payroll taxes.
>>73359827
Daily reminder that wealth is not a fixed pie and income inequality is not a measure of wealth
Income inequality would cease to exist if all poor people died. So why not kill them?
It's clear to anyone that the sole reason why people are poor is because of their bad choices. They CHOOSE to be LAZY and they choose to not work as hard as me.
>>73365586
You'll have to blow up 80% of the human race in one go, maybe even a higher percentage. It's a globalist world now, and the majority of people fit into the useless poor box.
And in the end you'll just have a new group of poor who fit into the box, namely the technicians and engineers who will be building and maintaining these supposed utopia robots.
>>73365979
Like what? I thought maybe a house at first, but location effects housing prices more than anything. Also the theory goes right the fuck out the window with automation.
>>73366116
Engineers and technicians are good. They can stay. But poor people are just a burden on society and on humanity in general. They're vile and sick. And we need to cure the planet from these vermin.
>>73365514
By shrinking the middle class and making the poor poorer, while making the top 1% even richer at the expense of the lower classes, and your economy didn't really benefit that much from that trickle down, did it? They also abuse every tax loophole and dirty trick there's to not pay, of course with the help of the government too, that corporate welfare isn't a coincidence.
>>73365557
Your country adopted socialism aka corporate welfare. Some of the inefficient policies just added to the damage but they're insignificant compared to the level of abuse and corruption that is fucking up your economy.
Welfare, contrary to what you've been told is actually a good thing, because it helps the poorest class. It's only a safety net for the most needy. It is not made to make people lazy. I'm not sure how it exactly works in the US but i'm sure there are limits and the bucks from welfare aren't that much to live by.
>>73365902
Handouts like what? I'm talking about reversing the redistribution. There's a lot of money that has been stolen from the lower classes.
>>73366116
> It's a globalist world now, and the majority of people fit into the useless poor box
Good thing we're going to start putting America first again. I can't wait to collect the radical leftist tears when he cuts the wasteful as fuck aid to Africa.
>>73360880
Congrats bro. Trump would be proud. What business?
>>73366214
The rich need to the poor to make money idiot.
If all the poor go away, the next sector of people in line will become the poor.
>>73362876
retards like this still exist
voluntary trade by definition cannot be theft
>>73365615
Are you retarded?
>>73361509
He says;
> In the early 1950's Sweden was one of the freest economies in the world with government spending relative to GDP was below the American level.
No shit. The amount of money we began spending after WW2 on the military is insane. We literally poured money into Western Europe by the ship.
>>73359827
Why do libcucks think everyone should be paid the same? Probably because they've never held a job.
>>73360803
I wonder how many people realize there truly isn't a way to get at the 1%. Even if we all coordinated our efforts to take from them, they are buffered so well they could just flee to safety before we could even touch them.
Imagine if we were to storm Wallstreet attempting to reach those at the highest heights of the buildings. Does anyone really presume a mob would make it to the top before they simply fly away in a helicopter?
The only wealthy who fear the angry poor at the top 50% minus the 1%. For they live in the most obvious territories in reach of the mob. The gated communities in the middle of the middle class. The lower floors of the towers. They are the ones that would be set upon. The 1% are without country or territory. They may own land and claim allegiance, but the moment such things become a danger to them they will be away, their fortunes and lives far beyond our reach.
>>73365760
le ebbon googal results argument
you didnt actually present a good argument though
whether thats what it was created for or not
alot of things are for different things than what they were made for
>>73366239
Okay, but HOW would they shrink the middle class?
What mechanic would they enact to drive this shrinkage?
And of course they try to pay as little as they can. The whole point of a business is to make money. They aren't doing this shit out of the kindness of their heart.
>>73362876
>steal
The only "rich" that steal is government.
The private sector, you buy a service or product from.
>>73365021
US population, you shifty kike
>>73366457
public schools shrink the middle class by being the cheapest schooling option
they raise bigger retards every generation and as people get stupider people get paid less and the middle class shrinks into the lower class
>>73365887
>Why?
Because they are contributing nothing to the betterment of society while I am by providing labor. It's literally that simple.
>>My time is more valuable because I fucking build things for society
>Can you prove objectively that this is right?
If I provide, or help to provide, something that people are in need of and demand it to be provided, the time spent doing that will always be more valuable than someone who is at best contributing nothing and at worse taking resources from society without putting much back in.
>America is a blight on the world and the sooner it collapses the better.
A high number of countries in the world would eat shit if America were to collapse economically. Where the fuck does this notion come from?
>You should be fined for building bridges to aid a degenerate resource-wasting blob of a "human" organisation, not paid for it.
How misanthropic of you.
> Also, your argument is that because you contribute more to society that therefore society ought to contribute more to you.
Of fucking course society should. Otherwise I'd be wasting my time and be better off in a socialist society where I have zero incentive to work since wealth is "evenly" distributed.
> some of the people who make the most money did so by taking enormously damaging risks that were absolutely not in the best interests of their companies or the financial sector
>Are you going to defend their paychecks as well?
My argument defends the people who are providing things that society has a demand for. Does society have a demand for people "taking enormously damaging risks"? If so, then those who provide that have well-earned their paychecks.
>>73365760
>Why was minimum wage created?
Like I said, it's so white unioners wouldn't have to compete with cheap black labor. Unemployment was the goal (black unemployment, that is).
>>73365223
People have a higher wage because people are willing to pay them more for their goods/services. Government interference in the market is simply preventing voluntary trade which benefits both parties. Unless it is harmful to third parties, it can only be a burden on society.
>>73366288
The poor people steal from the rich via taxes. We work hard while they stay idle eating off what we produce. And they ask for more and more and more.
They have too many kids because they have no ability to self-restraint and they commit too much crime because they're brutes (it's the reason why they're poor)
To hell with the poor. Kill them all. Every single one of them.
>>73364294
In a world of fiat currency, it can be.
Just print off more bills like the Federal Reserve did with zero consequences.
I'm starting a movement -- GAS THE POOR.
We need to make it happen.
If we don't get rid of the poor and soon they'll be coming after our wealth.
These savages want socialism because they're thieves.
I worked hard for my money. So did my dad and my grandfather. We owe the poor nothing yet they ask for more.
Haven't I been merciful enough? In a truly free market society they would be out in the street. Starving. Dying. But they're alive. They exist because we don't allow the market forces to work. Let them starve!
>>73365887
>but some of the people who make the most money did so by taking enormously damaging risks that were absolutely not in the best interests of their companies or the financial sector, but were very much in the interests of themselves
If you're talking about crises like the housing and student bubbles, these are created because the government changes the context of the economy with laws which give an incentive for some parties to lend money when there is little guarantee of return on investment thereby inducing an eventual collapse in the market system
>>73366710
>fiat money
>wealth
Ha.
>>73365887
>I should make more than someone sitting on their ass all day bitching about how poor they are while wiping their ass with job applications if I'm actually fucking working.
>Why?
>>73359827
sounds like communism to me
>>73366239
what it is really is that the less competition for their spoiled sheltered kids who were too lazy to learn anything from school besides smoking pot and being promiscuous sexual deviants... if everyone is too poor to afford to college that means that the best and brightest are unlikely to be competition to their kids who are lazy worthless fucks that are given cushy desk jobs their parents worked
>>73366239
What? It isn't just corporate welfare. Our welfare state has grown MASSIVELY since the Reagan years, our entitlement spending is almost 50 fucking % of the Federal budget. Compare the graphs for entitlement spending and income inequality, I think you may see a striking correlation.
> It's only a safety net for the most needy
That's not true at all. There are millions on welfare perfectly capable of working that can't find jobs because our economy is shit. I was one of them for a long time. Not to mention all the people on welfare who never have any intention of working, because they can live comfortably on welfare and food stamps and selling crack on the side.
>>73366528
>The private sector is holy, infallible and can do no wrong
This is you.
>>73366457
Tax breaks, bailouts, decreased income for longer hours, monopolies which hinder competition and promote the destruction of small-medium sized businesses etc etc. There are many ways to shrink the middle class.
Yeah, the point is to make money but you can't do it at the expense of the workers. You have to find the right balance.
this thread is cancer
>>73366870
Class warfare? Care to make it international class warfare?
>>73359827
Why is it bad?
>>73366870
>If we don't get rid of the poor and soon they'll be coming after our wealth.
I like Trump's plan better. Just give them jobs and then the whole country can be awesome. Plus with domestic terrorist organizations like BLM investigated, we'll have much better social harmony.
On the one hand, I really don't approve of the negative macroeconomic effects of income inequality. On the other, I don't think people ought to get fucked just because they did better.
I tell you what: Make a new top tax bracket, tax it at 50%, and mandate every dollar earned from that bracket goes towards national infrastructure for the next forty years.
>>73366972
>The private sector is holy, infallible and can do no wrong
>This is you
Strawman argument. He merely stated a demonstrable fact about the nature of the free market. Companies can only steal if they're breaking the law, you act like its inherent to Capitalism.
>>73366636
All you're doing is repeating your position, not proving it right, and attacking the very fringes, not my central point. You cannot objectively prove that you deserve more money than other people. The best you can do is say that people who contribute more deserve more in turn, and you are using market interaction as a measure of contribution.
Firstly, you have not proven that people who contribute more deserve more in turn. I could say that contribution to the state is the noble duty of all citizens, and you are doing no more than what you ought, so therefore you deserve no more than others.
Secondly, you have not proven that market interaction is the correct measure of contribution. I could say that art is the greatest contribution anyone could ever make to society, but artists are by-and-large paid very little according to market interaction.
You argument is full of holes. The reason it is full of holes is because you broke the fundamental rules of being an intelligent person: first comes research, then comes the position. You have adopted the position that income inequality is not wrong, and only when called out do you realise that you actually need to have a reason why that is the case. You need to think before speaking in future.
>Does society have a demand for people "taking enormously damaging risks"?
I don't know, does it? If your argument is that people who take enormously damaging risks are simply fulfilling demand then you need to be able to show that the demand existed. It's your argument, mate. Argue it.
>inb4 "it happened therefore it was demanded"
Do better.
>>73359827
What do you think the 1% spend all that money on?
>fast cars and mansions
Mate they own all the businesses you'd be fucked without.
They own all the colleges you need to get a decent job.
They own the military that keep your country safe.
And they even give more than you ever could to charities.
pray to the 1% you fucking pleb they own you
>>73367119
I say take away all the welfare and all the benefits.
Let's instill a truly free market economy -- if you don't produce you don't get to eat and you thereby starve on the street.
The reason why the Western world is failing is precisely because we've put safety measures to help the weak -- this doesn't exist in nature. In nature if you're weak you die. We need to go back to that.
>>73360902
The "Correct the Record" PAC is openly bragging about its million-dollar effort to "push back" against Hillary's detractors on the internet, you lying faggot.
At best you can try to claim that it's "merely" a multi-million-dollar super PAC doing the paying of shills on her behalf, and not actually her campaign directly. But that would make you an obtuse cunt, so don't do it.
>>73366667
This describes the way things are. It doesn't justify them.
is =/= ought
>>73366871
So are you arguing that the people who made the decisions to lend the money have no agency? That they could not refrain from doing what they were incentivised to do? If you strip them of their free will then what is true for them must be true for all of us. In that situation the engineer is not an engineer because of anything he personally chose to do - he had no choice but to follow his "destiny" (remember: no agency, no free will), so why does he deserve more money simply for doing the only things he could do and making the only choices he could make?
>>73366913
>thinking hurts my brain
>>73367318
I think very few would actually starve, assuming the economy also improved. Not dying is the best incentive to work. You know what finally got me off welfare? Getting a girlfriend, I had pussy incentive to not be a bum.
>>73367318
I'd laugh if the day after this happened you broke both your legs through no fault of your own.
>>73360902
>trusted, hardy tested
Well she certainly isn't trusted, not by most of the country. And all that testing has shown us that she is utterly incompetent, or corrupt, or a combination of both.
>Look into Hillary's record
Every American has and that is why she won't be elected.
>>73366958
I'm saying what it's supposed to be. If welfare in the US has problems then fix it and reduce the range, but only if it's really necessary. I didn't do enough research to know if what you said is true. I'm sure one of the reasons the welfare state has grown so much is also because there are many more poors than before thanks to Reaganomics, which also fucked up the middle class, and let's not talk about Bush.
>>73367248
He compared government to private sector which includes corporations and they can have as much influence as the government or even more, depending on the situation. Both sides can steal.
>Companies can only steal if they're breaking the law
There can be holes in laws and i'm sure there are things that you can say are legal but technically is theft.
>>73367529
Oh don't worry I can afford it. Unlike you I'm not a lazy piece of shit.
>>73367772
Tell us more about your untold riches, anon.
>>73367434
>This describes the way things are. It doesn't justify them.
I did give a justification to how this is beneficial. Both parties benefit in voluntary trade. If it doesn't adversely effect third parties, then it is beneficial because they both wanted to participate in the transaction. You can do this forever, asking for an infinite string of justifications, but it will get you nowhere reasonable.
>So are you arguing that the people who made the decisions to lend the money have no agency?
Causal Responsibility does not imply moral responsibility. I am saying that the lenders in this instance are causally responsible but the lawmakers are morally responsible. If the lawmakers didn't pervert the free market system in such a way there wouldn't be any collapse. It's like if I tell you I will kill you if you don't kill someone, and you do. Does this make you morally responsible for the person's death?
>>73367272
>Firstly, you have not proven that people who contribute more deserve more in turn. I could say that contribution to the state is the noble duty of all citizens, and you are doing no more than what you ought, so therefore you deserve no more than others.
Then you're implying that those who do less than they are ought to deserve the same amount of money as people who do. That is asinine; it leads to a society where there is zero/little incentive to do anything constructive since you will end up with the same results as not doing anything constructive.
> I could say that art is the greatest contribution anyone could ever make to society, but artists are by-and-large paid very little according to market interaction.
I refer you to your original argument: > You can't prove this objectively. It's your opinion, not a fact.
Since the concept of the individual value of societal contribution isn't something that can directly be measured, we have no choice but to refer to the reality of supply/demand and human incentive.
>inb4 "that's the way things are, not how they ought to be"
Tough shit. If you have a better system of measurement, get on some platform and preach your idea to the masses. Otherwise, suck it up.
>You have adopted the position that income inequality is not wrong, and only when called out do you realise that you actually need to have a reason why that is the case.
...have you not read anything that I've said? income inequality is not wrong because: >If I provide, or help to provide, something that people are in need of and demand it to be provided, the time spent doing that will always be more valuable than someone who is at best contributing nothing and at worse taking resources from society without putting much back in.
The people who are the "doers" naturally earn more than people who just consume. For you to be against that would imply that you think that all time is equally valuable and everyone is indiscriminately at the same wealth
>>73367449
Few would starve because food drive charities are a thing. For a "work or starve" world you need to ensure you can only eat if you work, as long as people with "big hearts" walk around freely handing out meals there will be people lining up to receive these free meals without work.
You would need to outlaw charities entirely for a work for food economy.
>>73364825
Because a minimum wage equals a minimum standard of living?? Do you have any common sense...
>>73367951
>I did give a justification to how this is beneficial. Both parties benefit in voluntary trade. If it doesn't adversely effect third parties, then it is beneficial because they both wanted to participate in the transaction.
I want to buy chemical weapons to use on women and children held in a refugee camp because I am in the midst of an ethnic genocide. Al Abad Guhy wants to sell chemical weapons. We trade voluntarily and I now have chemical weapons, which I use on women and children held in a refugee camp.
This is beneficial voluntary trade. No third parties are adversely affects by the trade. They are when I use the weapons, but not by the actual trade itself. Should Al Abad Guhy be allowed to sell me chemical weapons knowing that I am going to use them on women and children in a genocide?
There are lots of activities that are beneficial to all involved but still considered morally wrong. They are considered morally wrong because the "shareholders" in any action are typically a much wider group of people than those directly involved in the activities. The shareholders in the proliferation of chemical weapons is basically everyone, whereas the people involved in the proliferation of chemical weapons is a far smaller group.
I don't think that the "nobody is harmed" defence of voluntary trade is compelling.
>Causal Responsibility does not imply moral responsibility
Your argument seems to be that the lawmakers created the situation in which the lenders acted so the lawmakers are responsible for the situation and the action. If this is the case then who is responsible for the situation in which the lawmakers made the laws? This argument can be used to shunt blame ad infinitum until nobody is accountable for anything.
>Does this make you morally responsible for the person's death?
Yes. Sometimes, your duty is to die. This argument was explored in an English criminal case involving cannibalism at sea.
>>73365223
>throws logic right the fuck out of the window because muh philosophy
It's you're "opinion" that burger flipping niggers deserve equal pay, fucking cuck
>>73368397
>These pics
Post real cute cats at least
>>73365754
>Start insulting other people's flag
>yet he is the one who is incoherent
Lol
>>73368067
>Then you're implying that those who do less than they are ought to deserve the same amount of money as people who do
Not necessarily. My gauge of "what you ought to do" might be very wide. I could argue that a frycook flipping burgers is doing what he ought in the same way that an engineer building bridges is. Sure, the engineer might be doing _more_, but "what you ought to do" can encompass anything from 1-100 on that scale of contribution, where 0 is nothing and 1 is everything. It would be a silly position in my opinion, but eminently possible. Marx once espoused "from each their ability, to each their need."
Or I could say that those who do less than what they ought will be shot, and everyone who does what they ought will be paid the same.
There are many possibilities.
>I refer you to your original argument: > You can't prove this objectively. It's your opinion, not a fact.
Correct, but this would then lead to you applying the same to your own argument, defeating yourself.
>Since the concept of the individual value of societal contribution isn't something that can directly be measured, we have no choice but to refer to the reality of supply/demand and human incentive.
A pragmatic argument, not a moral one. Furthermore, if I say that classical aesthetic beauty is the greatest good then we have a problem measuring art against art, but not art against economics. How much artists contribute is up for debate, but it's still a given that any artist must contribute more than a mere engineer.
>Otherwise, suck it up.
Not a moral argument.
You can say "this is the way the world is and suck my cock if you don't like it", and that would be correct. I'm not saying the world isn't as you describe it.
What I'm saying is that you can't justify that world.
The correct response to what I'm saying is "fuck you, I don't have to. Cry more, bitch nigger."
Post continues.
>>73368397
You can bring up many rare scenarios of trade which could harm third parties indirectly and whatnot, but the general principle is government interference in the free market is a much worse alternative to a free market because it prevents an overwhelming occurrences of desire from being fulfilled. You can justify case by case certain government interference, but it should be an exception rather than the rule, it should be explained rather than assumed to be good.
>>73366633
Bitch please, public schools can be good. Look at my country
>>73368067
>If I provide, or help to provide, something that people are in need of and demand it to be provided, the time spent doing that will always be more valuable than someone who is at best contributing nothing
Assuming I agree with this and don't want you to prove this objectively, it still doesn't mean you should be paid more. Your contribution is larger, indisputably, but like I said earlier, I can easily say that it is your noble duty and you should be glad for the glorious opportunity to labour.
Or I could argue that God wants us to forsake material possessions.
Or I could argue that people need things more than you, and although you have a right to property it is overruled by other people's needs, and so while in a normal situation you would have a right to more compensation in this emergency period you must make do with less.
I could say so many things to this, and this is all even with the assumption that time spent meeting demands is actually valuable. I could argue that human demands are sinful and that you are facilitating vice and nullify the whole premise.
>>73360578
In a way it is not wrong as the more work that is put into manufacturing a product does increase the price.
However, the value is determined by supply and demand.
If there is enough labour available to make a product X for every single citizen in the planet, then the value of the labour is low as supply for required labour can easily be met any time there is demand.
If there is only enough labour available to produce product X for 1% of the world's population, then the cost of the labour skyrockets as in order to acquire Product X, you must potentially be able to outbid 99 people at maximum in order to get said product.
Of course, the personal enjoyment determines the demand, but in an unrestricted scenario, availability of labour determines supply.
>>73368909
I agree with that.
>>73367693
Corporations can only have as much influence as the government or dodge taxes like they do when they ILLEGALLY bribe the government. Trading campaign donations for preferential treatment is not legal. It's just really hard to prove a direct connection. Corporations only exist in the first place because of the State, and they get more powerful as the State does.
>There can be holes in laws and i'm sure there are things that you can say are legal but technically is theft.
I'll agree with you here. Most of the tax evasion is technically legal, which is why Trump wants to get rid of them or penalize offshoring in some way.
>>73368838
Do you even have a point that you stand on? You speak with this undeserved sense of moral superiority because you're speaking against the mainstream.
You say that I can't objectively prove that the time someone spends being productive is worth more than someone who isn't (when I have repeatedly referred to the only unbiased standard which the amount one is paid for their labor), so you go ahead and objectively prove that everyone's time is no better or worse than others.
Oh, wait... you don't actually have a single argument you stand for.
>>73365015 asked a simple question and all you provide was counter-arguments to his case without providing a solid argument of your own. Don't "have a better question;" answer his question and have a better argument.
>>73360995
kek
>>73359827
(Neo)conservative media rejects the notion that markets can fail, and therefore any inequality in income is based on a real difference in economic value.
In reality, markets do fail, and a large part of the extent in income inequality is based solely on the fact that the game is insanely rigged in favor of massive international corporations.
>>73368991
>prove this objectively
does anyone know what he means by this?
>Trump wants to introduce tariffs that punish businesses for free market practices (because "muh jobs")
How is he even a conservative?
>>73369248
>Do you even have a point that you stand on?
Yes.
You cannot objectively prove that you deserve more money for your work.
You can prove that you get more money for your work.
You can hold the opinion that you deserve more money for you work.
You can even demonstrate that your opinion is a widely-held one.
But you cannot objectively prove that you deserve more money for your work, and therefore you don't have a leg to stand on when railing against somebody who thinks that you don't. You must convince them on pragmatic, not moral grounds. If they do not care about pragmatism and choose to stand on principle ("this is what I believe is right and I will never compromise!") then you're at an impasse.
>the only unbiased standard which the amount one is paid for their labor
Top kek. It's entirely possible that God exists and that he says that art is the greatest good in the universe and we should all strive to be artists. Would you still call the economy the only unbiased standard if that were the case? Of course not. The economy would be biased by the sinful desires of imperfect humans, because if it were unbiased then it would reflect the value of art.
You don't know that the economy is an unbiased standard.
>so you go ahead and objectively prove that everyone's time is no better or worse than others.
I can't.
>without providing a solid argument of your own
My argument is entirely clear. It is that he is wrong, because there is no objective moral truth for him to stand on to make that declaration.
>answer his question
Fine. "There is no reason why you should make the same and no reason why you should not, but I have a cupboard full of compelling arguments that you should do what I tell you." and that's when I pull out some guns and start shooting people.
Welcome to politics, enjoy your stay.
Stupid Conservatives
-Because whilst they can see the dangers of a concentration of political power they cannot see any dangers in the concerntration of economic power
-Knee jerk hostility to any change.
Smarter conservatives
Whilst understanding that its a problem think that the steps that would need to be taken to address it would create a greater evil. They close their eyes and think of the American Dream (ie meritocracy) as the economy fucks them raw silently hoping that this time itll finish on their back and not in their hair
>>73360459
IF YOU DID THAT MONEY WHIT YOUR BRAIN, YOU DESERVE IT
>>73369515
"our universe contains moral categories of values (good and evil) and duties (right and wrong actions) that exist independently of the opinion of anyone and that apply to the actions and motivations of all persons. Therefore, the topic at hand is a question of ontology—whether these categories actually exist, and not epistemology—how we know these categories. How we come to knowledge of morality is irrelevant to the question; whether we know the speed limit on the streets of our city has no effect on the existence of such a limit. In my hometown, you will still be cited for speeding, even if the road is not posted with speed limit signs!
"Secondly, the claim is not interested in whether one believes in objective morality. Belief in, or lack of belief in a truth claim does not make the claim true or false. You may not believe that our town has a speed limit; you can still be given a citation in spite of your lack of belief. What the claim addresses is whether these moral categories exist in reality, not in someone’s belief system."
>>73363516
You're going to organize attacks on multiple sprawling, guarded chateaus around the world simultaneously? You're talking about people who own 10-50 multi-million dollar properties. Hitting the elite is a pipe-dream of overconfident plebs.
>muh power is in the people
The people gave up their power and continue to do so to this day. You live in fucking police states. All major cities are on 24-hour video and audio surveillance. They fucking monitor all of your cell phones, communications, bank transactions. They track and predict your daily routines based on correlated spending, gps, and social media data. If you had any potential to do any real harm to them and were in the process of preparing to do so, your simple ass would disappear. And that is the bottom line. This isn't 3rd world Syria. US, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, all of the power houses, they all exercise complete control over their subjects. The data wars are already over, the people lost and they don't even know it.
>>73359827
At least conservatives gives everyone a chance to be rich, democrats keeps them poor by turning them into reliant drones.
>>73369637
Do you believe that all work is equally valuable?
>>73369869
>not epistemology—how we know these categories
How can you make ontological statments without having sorted out your epistemology first?
>>73360931
You're the one that's delusional and hadn't checked facts.
>>73365753
This.
I make just over half of that and I'm young, and not even in a management position yet. The 1% encompasses much more than billionaires and millionaires, given how many lazy and unskilled fucks there are out there.
No way do I want my wealth redistributed to you lazy niggers after my hard years of work making it. Fuck off commies.
>>73360459
All right, I'll give you the same reason Finnish companies got before globalists pushed us into EU and destroyed everything.
Favouritism in domestic market against foreign competition.
We used to have an economic sponge going on that allowed us to make domestic buying power tremendously low and foreign buying power extremely high.
The socialist systems keep the poverty in check and trickle down money whenever prices reach too high levels to keep the growth bubble from bursting.
Granted, this will only work if we can keep the feminists from filling the socialist systems with pointless garbage and only allow employment based immigration.
>>73370035
I don't believe that it is possible to know.
Some work is worth more money, and money can be used to provide security, and I want to be secure.
Whether any of those things are inherently valuable and therefore can be used as a measure of value is unknowable.
>>73370109
You can't, but the matter at hand is ontological not epistemological.
Whether an object is a rock or a tree is an ontological question, but how we know what the object actually is, is an epistemological question. Two components of the same problem, I suppose.
>>73369913
I honestly don't like to think about this but it's so true. We are completely enslaved with no way out. It's completely futile, the power structure could shut down anything before it got any kind of real traction. They only allow shit they want: BLM, Occupy Wallstreet. Shit like the militia guys and Bundy, they come at, guns at the ready.
>>73369869
>our universe contains moral categories of values (good and evil) and duties (right and wrong actions) that exist independently of the opinion of anyone and that apply to the actions and motivations of all persons
concepts that depend on the judgement of someone are somehow independent of anyone... makes total sense
>Secondly, the claim is not interested in whether one believes in objective morality
>What the claim addresses is whether these moral categories exist in reality
Contradictory
>>73370284
>I don't believe that it is possible to know.
Then I'll ask this: Do you believe that all humans are equally capable mentally and physically?
>>73370350
>concepts that depend on the judgement of someone are somehow independent of anyone... makes total sense
Then you disagree with the existence of objective morality, and we are in agreement.
However, this necessarily means you agree that
"You cannot objectively prove that you deserve more money for your work.
You can prove that you get more money for your work.
You can hold the opinion that you deserve more money for you work.
You can even demonstrate that your opinion is a widely-held one
But you cannot objectively prove that you deserve more money for your work."
>Contradictory
No. Whether or not a particular rock exists is not affected by whether or not you believe a particular rock exists. That's all he's saying.
Some people believe in objective morality and they could be wrong.
Some people do not believe in objective morality and they could be wrong.
Either way, one group is going to be wrong.
>>73370512
>Do you believe that all humans are equally capable mentally and physically?
It depends on the task. Are all humans equally capable mentally and physically of existing? Yes. Are all humans equally capable mentally and physically of going to the moon? No. If you're asking are all humans equally capable mentally and physically of performing 'useful' work, then no I don't believe that they are.
I value Europeans and people whose personal morality aligns with communal European morality much more highly than others, regardless of their capability.
>>73370881
>If you're asking are all humans equally capable mentally and physically of performing 'useful' work, then no I don't believe that they are.
That is the point I am leading to. It's "objectively proven" than there are IQ disparities between races of people ( https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf ). I then say that it is also proven that one's capacity for high levels of work is worth more than another's limit of lower levels of work (i.e. solving Calculus problems versus counting the number of job applications on one's desk).
Given the different limits in the capacity to do higher levels of work, it is rational, if not completely true, to say that the ones with the capacity of higher levels of work will be the most apt to both survive and add more resources to whatever society they are a part of than someone who's capacity is limited is lower levels of work. Since survival is the main drive of living things, traits that allow the person to thrive are valued higher than traits that don't.
Because higher levels are "worth more" on this scale, society translates that to the distribution of resources (i.e. money). Those who are capable of performing higher levels of work are more valuable than someone who can't; their work entitles them to more money in society.
>>73371823
I agree with almost all of that, and what I don't agree with just needs a change in wording, not substance (e.g. " it is also proven that one's capacity for high levels of work is worth more than another's limit of lower levels of work" becomes "it is also proven that one's capacity for high levels of work is WIDELY CONSIDERED TO BE worth more than another's limit of lower levels of work", edits in capitals)
It is a description of how things are, not how they ought to be.
I think we've reached the terminus of this argument anyway. Thanks for your time, I thoroughly enjoyed it. You're much smarter than most of the people I end up speaking to.
>>73372058
>It is a description of how things are, not how they ought to be.
>>73367434
is =/= ought
But... yeah. I've legitimately wanted to punch you because I felt that you were trolling, then I realized you're just a third party to the original argument. I'll have to give you the respect of forcing me to validate my points. That standard isn't held much in places like this. What's with all the cats though?
>>73372058
What branch of philosophy are you under anyway?
>>73372354
>>73372508
I'm a strict relativist.
Soft relativism is "there is no objective truth but if enough people hold a viewpoint then we can use that to determine morality".
Strict relativism is "there is no objective truth therefore morality cannot be determined".
Relativism stems from positivism: "Positivism is a philosophical theory stating that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge."
Nobody has ever directly experienced objective morality, ergo it does not form part of our body of knowledge. People shit on positivism because it's not "useful" for philosophy - it makes it very hard to argue any position - but you can't ignore the truth just because you don't like it in my opinion.
And the cats are because I usually furpost when I'm making a real argument. No particular reason, I just do. I have sneks as well.
>>73359827
Because the ones who make this complaint are unemployable Underclass retards who want free shit from Bernie. I'm looking for a Job from Trump.
>>73369559
He's not (economically), but neither are the vast majority of Republicans.There are basically three major tents in the Republican party: the neoconservatives, the fundamentalists, and the "nationalists-lite".
Neoconservatives are economically conservative, and usually somewhere in the middle socially. In practice, they swing right on social issues to keep the rest of the coalition happy.
The fundamentalists are socially conservative, but economically they are somewhere in the middle or even slightly to the left.
The nationalists-lite are socially conservative in a different way (it's almost like political views can't be described on a single left-right spectrum or something), and economically they are basically mild Democrats.
The vast majority of the Republican party elite are neoconservatives, but the vast majority of Republican party voters are fundamentalists or nationalists. If you're wondering how that's worked for so long, it's because the party elite has been paying lip service to those two groups while rigging their primaries to protect them from insurgent outsiders. It's a bait and switch. Republican voters don't really want neoconservative economics, they've just had to settle for neoconservative economics in order to get the policy they want on social issues.
Maybe continued.
>>73373087
Huh... cool.
>>73373562
So why did it all break down this election? Three big reasons:
1) Republican-controlled media uses anxiety about social issues to motivate voters. Nobody gets excited about tax breaks for rich people - just ask Kasich. Republican voters are more scared than ever about the impending collapse of the American way of life and they're not even really wrong.
2) The 2010 census and redistricting created a lot of districts in which Republicans can't actually lose. There's no need to compromise on moderate candidates anymore, so outsiders who are more aligned with the party base than with washington insiders are making it through the process for the first time... ever.
3) The GOP changed their primary rules after the clusterfuck that was the 2012 Republican primary. Last time, Mitt Romney was the clear frontrunner for most of the race, but it wasa close enough race that his opponents stuck it out to the end, creating a long and bitter primary that they think hurt them in the general. The new rules heavily favor the frontrunner. And then Trump shows up, telling Republican voters exactly what they want to hear - a whole lot about social issues, almost zero neoconservatiev economics. Trump IS the man who best represents Republican voters... and just like the voters he represents, he's not economically conservative by the standards of American politics.
>>73359827
Because all the people who aren't the guy in the suit are retards who would waste their money at best and destroy the world with it at worst.
>>73365184
both
they gain social cedit by being the former and the use it to further their own interests, which often times run counter to our own
>>73365979
Which makes it wrong. Labour does not have value. Products have value.
>>73359827
I believe in self-determination. Asking the government to rob rich people so I can get some gibsmedat cash is the opposite of self-determination.
I would rather die poor of my own accord.
>>73370284
>I don't believe that it is possible to know
Thats not an argument.
Its very simple to know. if spends 10 hours making a car and another person spends 30 hours and makes a steak, who should be valued more?
Its that simple.
>>73374563
>Thats not an argument.
I wasn't asked for an argument, I was asked for my belief.
>>73359827
I'm not even against the 1%, which may be the result of hard-work and entrepreneurship. I'm against the 1% of the 1%, a place you can't be without exploiting everybody else, evading taxes and being a selfish son of a bitch in general.
> tl dr: gas the kikes
>>73359827
wtf is income "inequality"? Is that SJW newspeak for Capitalism?
