Politics

Buc-ee's

Buc-ee’s will continue to open its super-popular convenience stores in conservative, pro-business states, founder Arch “Beaver” Applin said at a store opening recently in Benton, Arkansas.

“When you find a conservative, business-friendly state with a phenomenal workforce, it makes a difference,” Applin said at the store’s opening. “I’m starting to realize life is too short to try to build in places where people don’t appreciate what you’re bringing.”

Red Leg said:

I frankly do not comprehend Millennials at all. Certainly they have faced economic headwinds,

Click to expand...

As a millennial, it is hard to believe the 1st 3rd of us are in our 40s now, and commonly referred to as geriatric millennails. At least in my circle this group has pretty much given up on social media.

We were the test cases when you needed a college email to access Facebook and then they opened it up to everyone and suddenly your Aunt wants to be your friend and comment on what you are doing. So now some still have it but it is for photos for family to see.

Now the back half of that generation and I think some early Gen Z, post every god damn thing under the sun. They will sit on snap chat all day, literally my nephew would call someone, set the phone down and go take a shower and come back and start talking...why not just hang up. They also have apps where they can see where everyone is at all times, like it is insane.

And to Red Legs point, his generation was raised by those that saw the great depression and WW2. Alot of my friends parents missed Vietnam and those there were some weird times economically but overall I believe the 80 and 90s worked out pretty well. This caused different parenting styles, and not to say one is better than the other, just different.

But Gen Z is much more conscious of mental health and doesn't seem to be as caught up in material things. Millennial parents seemed to be really active and supportive, alot of times you have whole families at sporting events (even practices). Both parents may be working but they seem to make sure they are there for their kids. I also don't know how many I have seen move so their kids can go to slightly better middle school/high school. So at least from what I see there is truly is an effort to provide a supporting environment.

As I remember, my grandfather gave me a copy of Rudyard Kipling's two "Jungle Books" when I was around nine or ten. They still reside in the library, and I revisit Mowgli, Baloo, and Shere Khan every few years. As I grew older, and began to consider the life of a soldier I discovered his military works of empire like "Barrack-Room Ballads" published in 1892 which contains among other works "Gunga Din." His darkest works on war were published following the death of his son at the Battle of Loos in 1915.

To get around to the point of this post, one of my favorite Barrack-Room Ballads poems is "Tommy." It captures the relationship between civilian society and the soldier just about perfectly - one day a source of too much expenditure and a blight on the community, and on the next, hero of the nation.

A production company in the UK has been putting a number of poems to music utilizing an AI generated singer named Amelia. "Tommy," the equivalent of GI when referring to British soldiers, is pretty well done.


This is the text of the poem from Barrack-Room Ballads

I WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o'beer,The publican 'e up an' sez, ``We serve no red-coats here.''The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Tommy, go away'';But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;They sent me to the gallery or round the music 'alls,But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Tommy, wait outside'';But it's ``Special train for Atkins'' when the trooper's on the tide,The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,O it's ``Special train for Atkins'' when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleepIs cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bitIs five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Tommy how's yer soul?''But it's ``Thin red line of 'eroes'' when the drums begin to roll,The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,O it's ``Thin red line of 'eroes'' when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an ``Tommy, fall be'ind,''But it's ``Please to walk in front, sir,'' when there's trouble in the wind,There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,O it's ``Please to walk in front, sir,'' when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an'schools, an' fires an' all:We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our faceThe Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Chuck him out, the brute!''But it's ``Saviour of 'is country,'' when the guns begin to shoot;Yes it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool--you bet that Tommy sees!

Red Leg said:

As I remember, my grandfather gave me a copy of Rudyard Kipling's two "Jungle Books" when I was around nine or ten. They still reside in the library, and I revisit Mowgli, Baloo, and Shere Khan every few years. As I grew older, and began to consider the life of a soldier I discovered his military works of empire like "Barrack-Room Ballads" published in 1892 which contains among other works "Gunga Din." His darkest works on war were published following the death of his son at the Battle of Loos in 1915.

To get around to the point of this post, one of my favorite Barrack-Room Ballads poems is "Tommy." It captures the relationship between civilian society and the soldier just about perfectly - one day a source of too much expenditure and a blight on the community, and on the next, hero of the nation.

A production company in the UK has been putting a number of poems to music utilizing an AI generated singer named Amelia. "Tommy," the equivalent of GI when referring to British soldiers, is pretty well done.

This is the text of the poem from Barrack-Room Ballads

I WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o'beer,The publican 'e up an' sez, ``We serve no red-coats here.''The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Tommy, go away'';But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;They sent me to the gallery or round the music 'alls,But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Tommy, wait outside'';But it's ``Special train for Atkins'' when the trooper's on the tide,The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,O it's ``Special train for Atkins'' when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleepIs cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bitIs five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Tommy how's yer soul?''But it's ``Thin red line of 'eroes'' when the drums begin to roll,The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,O it's ``Thin red line of 'eroes'' when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an ``Tommy, fall be'ind,''But it's ``Please to walk in front, sir,'' when there's trouble in the wind,There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,O it's ``Please to walk in front, sir,'' when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an'schools, an' fires an' all:We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our faceThe Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Chuck him out, the brute!''But it's ``Saviour of 'is country,'' when the guns begin to shoot;Yes it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool--you bet that Tommy sees!

Click to expand...

It’s always been a bit of a family trade for me, with uncles and aunts serving in WW1, WW2 and Korea (and ancestors straight through to the Continental Army). My dad, a Seabee, grew up dirt poor in the depression in Famersville Texas, often going hunting after school to bring home something my grandmother would cook and they would eat that night (ducks, squirrels, rabbits, turtles; his dad had passed away). He was quite literally a subsistence hunter. Passing the tradition along was quite important. When he enlisted he brought some of his brother’s uniforms with him and received credit in his first pay.

They actually owned the small parcel of land their home was on. Their neighbors were sharecroppers and had a lemon beagle. My dad always called beagles “Murphy dogs”. At reunions my uncles would sometimes talk about going to school in a single room schoolhouse with this fellow named they said went by “Leon” Murphy. Others knew him as Audie. It was a different time.

This fellow is a First Nations Chief and a fantastic journalist. There is a lot more in this than CBC stuff. Particularly, there is an interesting discussion about marriage, and fatherless families at about the 1 hour mark and its role in Hip Hop culture. I hope people like Aaron Pete get support.

Scott CWO said:

Interesting that you mentioned being a Transportation Engineer. I’m dealing with the government and a TE right now. They are expanding the highway bordering my ranch and are adding lanes. They will be removing my trees and tearing up my valuable grass pastures that we depend on for grazing our horses and mules. Check the price of hay lately in this drought? They will only make one attempt at seeding my pastures afterwards and are not offering me enough money to offset the loss of grazing for about three years that I will incur and that’s IF their grass seeding even takes hold.

Click to expand...

Are they going to eminent domain land or is it an easement? Each state is different, but in most states in the south the first DOT official to contact property owners is a right of way agent. They have knowledge of real estate, but typically not ranching or farming. And if they're from Denver they most certainly don't. That leads to the question; is my DOT centralized or de-centralized? NC DOT is decentralized. So we have 14 divisions, thats 14 little fiefdoms, all with their own rules and policies. Find out which type of DOT you have.

At any rate, your local DOT office is use to folks angrily coming in and demanding things. Pro tip, when you go in and talk with them, calling them a bunch of worthless, paper-pushing, red-tape loving bureaucrats who are stealing your land is not a good idea. Your local office probably has someone who is familiar with the needs of rancher and farmers. Make a connection and have them advocate for you. Parallel effort, find a real estate lawyer who specializes in DOT eminent domain and easement cases in rural areas. Paying $300-$400 for a consultation fee is probably well worth it. A $500 demand letter from a law firm can move things along if all else fails. Plus you probably can deduct it all as a business expense.

It sounds like you have four issues, taken land, easement land, loss of trees, and loss of grazing. On the plus side, a blue state out west usually values trees on private land much higher than a red state (depending upon their use). Also depends upon if they are on your property or in the current DOT easement though.

Scott CWO said:

In addition, I lease an adjoining state owned pasture that also borders the highway and they are offering me nothing for the damage to it because I don’t own it, even though I have leased it for 25 years and just signed a lease extension.

Click to expand...

I can't help you with a lease of state land, that would depend upon what the terms of the lease are and state law. You'd need an a real estate attorney that specializes in those to advise you further.

Scott CWO said:

They are offering me a pittance for a permanent easement and damages to my grass and we are in a drought, so it is doubtful that one seeding attempt will work. They refuse to add a clause to do another seeding if their first attempt fails. So, your experience with the private sector was bad but I could relate several bad experiences I have had with your beloved government and bureaucracy. The government doesn’t always make things better, protect people or do the right thing. I deal with several agencies with our business and I could tell you multiple stories. Ever try to get in touch with agency people on a Friday? Good luck but you probably already know that.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the best thing to do is use the government's own rules, regulations, and policies against them. I would bet that CO has more strict ENV policies and procedures that any red state out west. Somewhere in those pages is the answer you seek, you just need to be willing to seek it out.

Big_Easy said:

Are they going to eminent domain land or is it an easement? Each state is different, but in most states in the south the first DOT official to contact property owners is a right of way agent. They have knowledge of real estate, but typically not ranching or farming. And if they're from Denver they most certainly don't. That leads to the question; is my DOT centralized or de-centralized? NC DOT is decentralized. So we have 14 divisions, thats 14 little fiefdoms, all with their own rules and policies. Find out which type of DOT you have.

At any rate, your local DOT office is use to folks angrily coming in and demanding things. Pro tip, when you go in and talk with them, calling them a bunch of worthless, paper-pushing, red-tape loving bureaucrats who are stealing your land is not a good idea. Your local office probably has someone who is familiar with the needs of rancher and farmers. Make a connection and have them advocate for you. Parallel effort, find a real estate lawyer who specializes in DOT eminent domain and easement cases in rural areas. Paying $300-$400 for a consultation fee is probably well worth it. A $500 demand letter from a law firm can move things along if all else fails. Plus you probably can deduct it all as a business expense.

It sounds like you have four issues, taken land, easement land, loss of trees, and loss of grazing. On the plus side, a blue state out west usually values trees on private land much higher than a red state (depending upon their use). Also depends upon if they are on your property or in the current DOT easement though.

I can't help you with a lease of state land, that would depend upon what the terms of the lease are and state law. You'd need an a real estate attorney that specializes in those to advise you further.

Sometimes the best thing to do is use the government's own rules, regulations, and policies against them. I would bet that CO has more strict ENV policies and procedures that any red state out west. Somewhere in those pages is the answer you seek, you just need to be willing to seek it out.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts. I have been very professional dealing with them in person and by email. The ROW agent, the TE and one other staff member came to our home and my wife and I were very courteous to them. We just asked questions, shared our perspectives about grazing, the costs of not being able to graze for a few seasons while the grass takes hold, how weeds take over here when the soil and turf is damaged, what happens if their seeding doesn’t take hold, will they make another attempt at seeding, etc…. We then took them on a friendly tour of our property.

We told them we are not interested in selling them any land but would agree to a permanent easement so that is what they have also now accepted. We differ on whether they should give us assurance that they will be committed to reseeding more than once, if needed, and returning our property to preexisting condition. It seems to us that they just want to do their project, which we feel isn’t needed in our exact location, do the minimum reclamation, walk away and leave us with no recourse if the seeding fails. The highway is fairly busy and has become a short cut for trucks headed east on I-80 on their way to Denver. Instead of continuing east to Cheyenne on I-80 and then turning south onto I-25 towards Denver, the truckers have figured out to turn SE at Laramie and cut the corner to Fort Collins and then get on I-25 and continue to Denver, saving an hour of time. There have been accidents and fatalities but none on or near our property. Most of the accidents have been further north and closer to Laramie, where the project is also planned. We feel this project will just encourage more drivers and truckers to cut the corner. I’ve also heard that the project is funded by stimulus money and the money needs to be spent on something! However, we realize that the only point we can stand on is seeding and reclamation of our land. They recently said they would install a temporary fence to prevent our horses from getting to the area where they will be working and to keep the horses off the seeded area. I agreed to that and asked them not to remove the temporary fence and that I would remove it at my cost when the seeding area was successful and able to be grazed. We have made some progress and I recognize that eminent domain is to be avoided.

TX049 said:

If the question is about the name, it's a requirement with a Texas driver's license to remind people at every opportunity of that fact. The choice in numbers was a consequence of others choosing names, growing tired of it, and a subtle, secondary nod to Texas.

Click to expand...

I was just wondering why you chose your username as TX049, I assumed TX for Texas, but was wondering if the 49 represented anyting more specific.

TX049 said:

As for the disruption, regret is a powerful depressant. This thread has touched on mental health--including the relationship with screens--and I can't imagine the realization of regret for time spent on a screen instead of "in the real world" (for lack of a better term) would be anything other than near-cataclysmic for society. Of course, that would be predicated on the event coming to pass and doing so in a large, general manner all at once affecting large numbers of people--a possibility that is coincidentally enabled be interconnectedness. Think of it as a population level identity crisis. I will pivot back to this at some point.

Click to expand...

Excessive screen time has certainly become a problem for many in this country. But I don't think it's any worse (yet) than many other means and methods of wasting time as Americans (humans). I used to say that if people in this country spend 1/4 the amount of time they do watching sporting events (either in person or on TV) on actually making this country a better place, that we'd live in a utopia by now. The amount of time in the past 100+ years that has been wasted (yeah I said wasted) on watching sporting events is unimaginable to me. And I said "making the country a better place," not working for the man. Volunteering, helping others, raising children, improving one's community is what I mean.

TX049 said:

The issue remains: why do you think wealth concentration is problematic?

Click to expand...

For two reasons:
1) We are stratifying into two America; eventually we will become a country of ~25% wealthy, and ~75% poor citizens. As I've said before, I believe that what's good for the median American, is what's good for me.
2) Concentration of wealth at the top 1% can actually slow down and stall out economic activity and output of our nation. Think of Scrooge McDuck swimming around his giant gold pit, or Smaug sitting atop his pile of gold. At some point it reduces movement of money and liquidity throughout the system. Which in turn constrains GDP growth. Which is ultimately bad for the country. Unfortunately this is a concept so foreign, so alien to the hyper-capitalist folks on here, no amount of research or math will ever convince them.

TX049 said:

The issue is how and when you slice the pie based on when you determine the origin "story" is.

Click to expand...

Today and the Gilded age times = undesirable...post-war American economic expansion = better.

TX049 said:

It's also complicated because wealth increased despite wage depression during (some of) the same period you're showing. It all goes back to how you choose to measure and the metric you are using. So I agree it's not as straightforward as presented.

Click to expand...

Did wealth increase? Yes, sure it did. But for whom did the wealth increase for?

TX049 said:

In retrospect, I should have left out the reference to small business. The intent was to try to get a definition of a big business by pointing out why it's important to define, but I unintentionally defined it as "not small business" in the process (and the number I was referencing would be using SBA guidelines as the underlying differentiator). I'm fine if your point is that small businesses treat employees better based on your experience. It's still undefined what constitutes a "big business.”

Click to expand...

I would say at least >$1B in annual revenue is a "big business." Roughly 6000-6500 in the united states.

TX049 said:

To start, the data EPI uses cherry picks 350 CEOs instead of using the thousands of data points for publicly traded firms available as a result of disclosures (not even addressing the missing data from private firms).

Click to expand...

I think cherry pick is the wrong wording here. There method may lead to a different increase rather than another, but picking the top 350 firms by sales is not cherry picking, it's meant to illustrate "the top of the top" when it comes to compensation of those at the top. Could they have selected the Forbes 500 list? Or S&P 500? Or every publicly traded Company? Sure. But they were going for the largest companies in America. Obtaining this data from 10,000+ publicly traded companies would be very difficult, if not impossible. They also didn't include missing data from private firms because, well, they're private. They are not subjected to the same disclosure regulations as the public ones. Obtaining reliable data for them would therefore be almost impossible.

TX049 said:

Instead of trying to account for outliers, the research is based off that data set.

Click to expand...

Should they have produced the entire data set, identified outliers, and included different statistical tests? Sure. But the broader point still remains valid. I have also never ever seen an analysis from the right that is as comprehensive as you are suggesting this one be.

TX049 said:

CEO compensation today is complex, but a significant portion includes stock bonuses which the data is conveniently framed capture as it encompasses one of the most significant bull runs in history (stock prices nearly doubled in the period he looks at), and this framing was intentional for that purpose.

Click to expand...

Well the reason CEO compensation is structured in this manner is because capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary, earned income by the gov. The time period is from the late 70s to present day. The type of compensation is not really relevant, that they received the compensation is. Companies could compensate their front line employees with more stock too if they wished.

TX049 said:

This data is then compared to the data of "non-supervisory workers" using data that, 20 years prior, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (who publish the data he is citing) noted that the "non-supervisor worker" is inaccurate and incomplete and should not be used (relating to source and methodology of data collection).

Click to expand...

The study is to convey the differences/disparities in pay increases in time between individual contributors, supervisors/management, and executives. There's only so much data being crunched in this space. If you can find better, more accurate reports then I would be happy to read them. Unlike so many on here, I'm not afraid of someone citing, and me then reading a math based data source. I still think my sources are more accurate than the ones posted on here from some random facebook profile.

TX049 said:

There was a move to actually stop distinguishing the two because the data point was that bad, but BLS chose to instead continue publishing it with an asterisk (probably because there was a cost associate with formatting for new data and a lack of funding for BLS).

Click to expand...

I wondering which political party is responsible for underfunding the BLS, and for refusing to implement new rules/regulations so that better, more accurate, higher quality data can be collected from these companies?

TX049 said:

The correct comparison would be CEO pay relative to worker pay at the same firm over time.

Click to expand...

And I would be more than happy for somebody to conduct such research. If you find a report that has done exactly this for all 10,000+ publicly traded companies during the time period, I wold love to read it. But the overall point would still remain the same. If the top 350 companies was a 1100% increase. What do you think the top 1000 companies would be? A 900% increase? Maybe a little less? What about the top 5000 companies? a 700-800% increase?

So assume a 700% increase for the top 5000 companies CEOs, and only a 24% increase for the median American. Does this make my point any less valid? Is 24% vs 750% substantially better than 24% vs 1100%?

TX049 said:

There are plenty of papers which show CEO pay is modeled by firm size relatively accurately (the abstract for Xavier Gabaix paper "Why has CEO Pay Increased So Much?" is literally "A tractable model of CEO pay. An upshot: the six-fold rise in CEO pay between 1980 and 2003 can be fully attributed to the six-fold increase in market capitalization of large companies during that period").

Click to expand...

Ok but then if compensation is tired to the increase in market capitalization of said businesses, then why hasn't the pay of the median worker also kept up with that and risen six-fold as well? Why is it that only CEO pay gets to increase at that proportional rate and nobody else's pay in the company gets too? Also, the market capitalization of a publicly traded company my not always be the best measure of it's true valuation or productive output.

TX049 said:

If you look at the world and see all big business as exploiting employees, based on my own mistake in using SBA guidelines to frame the argument, we're talking about half the population seemingly repressed. That's going to weigh on a person.

Click to expand...

Not all workers of big businesses are exploited, and not all are repressed. It's the inability for so many folks on here to even accept the possibility for this to occur that's surprising even for such a far-right group. Many on here tend to believe that big business is always a force of good, and government always a force of bad.

TX049 said:

I asked you why wealth concentration is an issue.

Click to expand...

I believe that I had two answers for this above. I'll give you a third; because at some point if enough people are dissatisfied with their lack of wealth, they'll turn to other, non-economic means of procuring it. And that would be very bad for the country as a whole.

TX049 said:

I'll give you an answer I believe is true: when the distance between the top and bottom expands at an accelerated rate, it's difficult for the bottom to see a way to the top.

Click to expand...

Correct, and hence why there is a rise in the DSA, and folks believing that capitalism is a failure. And considering Socialism once again. I've tried explaining this very point to folks on here before, only to be met with a chorus of insults and accusations. They simply can't comprehend it. It's a bridge too far for them.

TX049 said:

You made a statement somewhere back referencing the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" on the American Right. Consider how that statement works in principle. On a truly "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" it means nothing because they believe they will find a path to prosperity so you aren't even addressing them in the first place, but as a pejorative, it only works if the one saying it believes that path doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

It was meant as a pejorative. However, by definition, most folks will not become a millionaire in our country. Hope is both a positive and a dangerous thing. A true double-edged sword.

TX049 said:

Laziness is not the issue.

Click to expand...

Correct, the idea that America is lazy is absured and not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

TX049 said:

You believe the American value proposition changed and I don't think you're alone.

Click to expand...

Correct, now please find a way explain that to the other forum members on here.

TX049 said:

At the same time, it's equally naive for millenials to pretend we've had it worse than any other generation and use that as an excuse.

Click to expand...

I don't think our generation truly believes that, they are just mad about the American value proposition changing AND other, older generations gaslighting us pretending that it didn't.

TX049 said:

If someone has a myopic view of the world, do you fault them for not wanting to participate?

Click to expand...

No, I ask them why they have the view they do. I ask them what happened. And I try to understand their perspective. I don't insult and gaslight them. (I'm not suggesting that you do, this is for other forum members on here).

TX049 said:

So I offer this challenge (and to everyone): how do you help people from a happiness perspective? How do you fight against apathy as a society? How do you make people care?

Click to expand...

I don't think we've figured that out yet. Let keep at it though.

Big_Easy said:

I was just wondering why you chose your username as TX049, I assumed TX for Texas, but was wondering if the 49 represented anyting more specific.

Excessive screen time has certainly become a problem for many in this country. But I don't think it's any worse (yet) than many other means and methods of wasting time as Americans (humans). I used to say that if people in this country spend 1/4 the amount of time they do watching sporting events (either in person or on TV) on actually making this country a better place, that we'd live in a utopia by now. The amount of time in the past 100+ years that has been wasted (yeah I said wasted) on watching sporting events is unimaginable to me. And I said "making the country a better place," not working for the man. Volunteering, helping others, raising children, improving one's community is what I mean.

For two reasons:
1) We are stratifying into two America; eventually we will become a country of ~25% wealthy, and ~75% poor citizens. As I've said before, I believe that what's good for the median American, is what's good for me.
2) Concentration of wealth at the top 1% can actually slow down and stall out economic activity and output of our nation. Think of Scrooge McDuck swimming around his giant gold pit, or Smaug sitting atop his pile of gold. At some point it reduces movement of money and liquidity throughout the system. Which in turn constrains GDP growth. Which is ultimately bad for the country. Unfortunately this is a concept so foreign, so alien to the hyper-capitalist folks on here, no amount of research or math will ever convince them.

Today and the Gilded age times = undesirable...post-war American economic expansion = better.

Did wealth increase? Yes, sure it did. But for whom did the wealth increase for?

I would say at least >$1B in annual revenue is a "big business." Roughly 6000-6500 in the united states.

I think cherry pick is the wrong wording here. There method may lead to a different increase rather than another, but picking the top 350 firms by sales is not cherry picking, it's meant to illustrate "the top of the top" when it comes to compensation of those at the top. Could they have selected the Forbes 500 list? Or S&P 500? Or every publicly traded Company? Sure. But they were going for the largest companies in America. Obtaining this data from 10,000+ publicly traded companies would be very difficult, if not impossible. They also didn't include missing data from private firms because, well, they're private. They are not subjected to the same disclosure regulations as the public ones. Obtaining reliable data for them would therefore be almost impossible.

Should they have produced the entire data set, identified outliers, and included different statistical tests? Sure. But the broader point still remains valid. I have also never ever seen an analysis from the right that is as comprehensive as you are suggesting this one be.

Well the reason CEO compensation is structured in this manner is because capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary, earned income by the gov. The time period is from the late 70s to present day. The type of compensation is not really relevant, that they received the compensation is. Companies could compensate their front line employees with more stock too if they wished.

The study is to convey the differences/disparities in pay increases in time between individual contributors, supervisors/management, and executives. There's only so much data being crunched in this space. If you can find better, more accurate reports then I would be happy to read them. Unlike so many on here, I'm not afraid of someone citing, and me then reading a math based data source. I still think my sources are more accurate than the ones posted on here from some random facebook profile.

I wondering which political party is responsible for underfunding the BLS, and for refusing to implement new rules/regulations so that better, more accurate, higher quality data can be collected from these companies?

And I would be more than happy for somebody to conduct such research. If you find a report that has done exactly this for all 10,000+ publicly traded companies during the time period, I wold love to read it. But the overall point would still remain the same. If the top 350 companies was a 1100% increase. What do you think the top 1000 companies would be? A 900% increase? Maybe a little less? What about the top 5000 companies? a 700-800% increase?

So assume a 700% increase for the top 5000 companies CEOs, and only a 24% increase for the median American. Does this make my point any less valid? Is 24% vs 750% substantially better than 24% vs 1100%?

Ok but then if compensation is tired to the increase in market capitalization of said businesses, then why hasn't the pay of the median worker also kept up with that and risen six-fold as well? Why is it that only CEO pay gets to increase at that proportional rate and nobody else's pay in the company gets too? Also, the market capitalization of a publicly traded company my not always be the best measure of it's true valuation or productive output.

Not all workers of big businesses are exploited, and not all are repressed. It's the inability for so many folks on here to even accept the possibility for this to occur that's surprising even for such a far-right group. Many on here tend to believe that big business is always a force of good, and government always a force of bad.

I believe that I had two answers for this above. I'll give you a third; because at some point if enough people are dissatisfied with their lack of wealth, they'll turn to other, non-economic means of procuring it. And that would be very bad for the country as a whole.

Correct, and hence why there is a rise in the DSA, and folks believing that capitalism is a failure. And considering Socialism once again. I've tried explaining this very point to folks on here before, only to be met with a chorus of insults and accusations. They simply can't comprehend it. It's a bridge too far for them.

It was meant as a pejorative. However, by definition, most folks will not become a millionaire in our country. Hope is both a positive and a dangerous thing. A true double-edged sword.

Correct, the idea that America is lazy is absured and not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

Correct, now please find a way explain that to the other forum members on here.

I don't think our generation truly believes that, they are just mad about the American value proposition changing AND other, older generations gaslighting us pretending that it didn't.

No, I ask them why they have the view they do. I ask them what happened. And I try to understand their perspective. I don't insult and gaslight them. (I'm not suggesting that you do, this is for other forum members on here).

I don't think we've figured that out yet. Let keep at it though.

Click to expand...

Who has said all big businesses and corporations act good? You, on the other hand, have lumped them together as bad in your past posts. Your statement above is an exception so hopefully you are growing your perspective.

Your sharing of your experiences in the 2008-2009 recession was very enlightening as to how your opinions were shaped. Your experiences are not the only experiences during that time. My business, providing a service in high demand, did not suffer as much as some others and so my employees also did not suffer much.

As you know, lots of states, counties and cities received reduced tax revenue during the recession. Instead of reducing their overhead and over-done commitments, many of these governments went on the hunt for even more money from citizen taxpayers and businesses. I will offer two examples:

In Colorado, we receive a postcard a couple months before our vehicle registrations expire offering different ways to pay up. Well, during the recession, they increased the late payment penalty to $125 per vehicle. At the same time, they intentionally stopped sending out the postcard reminders. Does that seem underhanded? One day, I was at our shop/barn and noticed that several of our truck and trailer registration tags were overdue. I called the DMV and was informed about the increase in late fees. I asked why I didn’t receive the postcards? The DMV employee told me that the postcards are just a courtesy reminder and that they are not required to send them out! I mentioned how bad that looked, in light of the huge increase in the late fee and that in 25 years of paying the DMV that I had never not received a postcard for every vehicle and trailer. I asked to speak to a supervisor. I told the supervisor that there was no way I was going to pay the penalties and that further, I would be contacting the TV media investigative reporters about this scam. I was put on hold and then she returned to the call and said my penalties would be waived. Great, but how many other people, many on limited budgets, paid the increased late fees? I suspect tens of thousands statewide. My daughter was serving a college internship in the Governor’s office at the time so she took this deception to the top and it was ended. Everyone received postcards the next year.

During the recession, the state passed a law that counties may start taxing businesses for property taxes for federal permit areas for commercial operations such as grazing, mining, logging, outfitting, ski areas, etc… even though the states already received PILT payments from the federal government for public lands in counties. PILT stands for Payment in lieu of Taxes. Years ago, the western states convinced the federal government that it was not fair that they received fewer property tax revenue due to the large federal land holdings in western states and counties so the feds started paying PILT. Now during the recession and ever since, I receive property taxes bills for federal lands that we operate on, even though we don’t own the land and even though the feds pay PILT! I already pay the federal government for the permits. It is even more unfair for outfitters because we are not granted exclusive use of public land. Anyone with a hunting license can hunt on their own in our permit areas. Outfitting is different in that way than mining, logging or grazing in that those permit holders to have the exclusive rights to those activities. I have brought this up to the county and state to no avail. I can tell you it is quite frustrating to pay property taxes on land you don’t even own! Governments don’t always do the right thing either! It’s not just some corporations.

Scott CWO said:

Mass incarceration is a Liberal talking point. I don’t remember voting for or supporting mass incarceration. I do support following the laws and not picking and choosing among them. Are we just to ignore it when people break drug laws or any law? If lots of people go to jail for breaking laws, so be it. Perhaps they should get the message and change their behavior? Oh but I digress, because they make lots of bad choices, they are poor and it’s not their fault (really?) so we should just let them slide on drug laws and live like a bunch of idiots without being productive? No.

Liberals quit enforcing immigration laws. Look back at speeches from Biden and other Democrats. They all supported enforcing border laws until they didn’t in the name of a power grab, our culture be damned. Many supported giving illegal immigrants a cell phone, prepaid debit cards and free housing in hotels and even schools. Why? To flood our country to get eventual voters and to skew the US Census for distribution of Congressional seats.

I have no tolerance for drugs. I have little tolerance for alcohol. Liberals largely don’t want to enforce drug laws. Liberals don’t want to enforce laws and regulations relating to health care for illegal immigrants. I have a client who is a pediatric dentist. He has been forced to provide care for illegal immigrant children and accept illegal payments from his state government that come from the federal government that are supposed to be for citizens. When a citizen child needs care, the government doesn’t pay. Why should the government pay for care for illegals? This is just wrong AND illegal.

Click to expand...

Amazing how you still can't stay on topic for even a single post. And how you reroute every conversation back to immigration.

Scott CWO said:

Thank you for proving my point that low-wage jobs are only a starting point, won’t provide a living and that’s the reason people should work hard and get promoted upward from such jobs to be able to be successful.

Click to expand...

The corporate hierarchy is a pyramid. At what level should one's earned wages constitute a livable wage? At what point should somebody be able to afford to live? High how before the math maths out for them? And if the wages aren't livable, why even bother working? Maybe that's what the 785,000 homeless Americans have decided?

Scott CWO said:

Ridiculous. A person’s success is definitely much more a majority result of their work and choices and opportunities they see and take. Your belief that it is more random ignores their work and good choices. My father always said you could take everything he worked for away and drop him off in any city in America and he would have a job by the end of the next day and start working his way back up the chain. Slackers don’t have that attitude or work ethic.

Click to expand...

This is a fun thought experiment if you'll permit me some leeway to build off of your statement and circle back to where you and @Big_Easy disagree. Your father is suggesting that successful people would continue to be successful under different circumstances. I'm inclined to agree with this, but that's because, presumably, both your father and I are using a similar level of "different" for our assumption. Your dad's example is that he has health and an ability to work. If he didn't have health and has no means to work (i.e. an infant abandoned in the forest), his example fails. We can (or should) at least all come to agreement there is a boundary.

There's a bit of a simplification here, but imagine you are swimming in the ocean 50 feet from shore. Presumably you can swim back. Now I drop you 50 yards off shore. You can work harder and make it back. What happens at a mile? 100 miles offshore? At some point, the only way you make it back is by a boat named Luck.

Big_Easy believes we are at (or are at least approaching) this point for the majority of Americans. My earlier point is that circumstances are always changing, so my argument suggests we don't know where the point lies in a generational sense, but the perception of our distance to or from that point is what matters anyway. The distance from shore could be 10 feet, but if the person is convinced it's 10 miles, are they going to try to swim back, or just accept their fate? In a sense, perception defines reality.

Red Leg said:

If I may offer something of a bottom line view of the course of this "discussion," it is that the majority of respondents on this thread represent a far different attitude or world view from the one portrayed by Big Easy. I should note that I remain skeptical of the exact relationship between what he claims (multiple degrees, membership in "liberal" shooting organizations, etc) and his reality. That said, the social construct he espouses is common enough among many today, as evidenced by the success of grievance as a political and social change motivation. Politically, the democrat socialist movement is working hard to harness that envy rather than seek change based upon an actual political or economic understanding of Marx or history.

Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I chose to engage in the first place and my concerns that he was simply trolling. Even if his entire personality is a fabrication, the underlying current of his opinions likely aren't, and that's the value. I'm not trying to engage in a point-by-point political debate either. I'm interested in the underlying grievance and how he arrived to it because, fundamentally, that's what I see as the issue that needs resolved on a broader level. I think most things are secondary or tertiary (and so on) effects.

Red Leg said:

I have no idea to what degree that sort of belief in self is woven into human DNA and how much is the product of environment. I suspect we are equally open to environmental imprinting with optimism and determination as we are pessimism and defeat. Big Easy likes to throw out "sundowner" insults when he can't or won't engage facts or the basis of beliefs with cogent argument. But, it is true many of us are indeed products of what Tom Brokaw so correctly named the Greatest Generation. We were born among men and women who as a result of the Depression and the Second World War had achieved so much at almost incalculable expense.

Click to expand...

It's a fundamentally interesting question. One point I want to interject is the origin story for a lot of the political debates holds WW2 as the foundational moment. It's why the "Greatest Generation" is the "Greatest." Not to diminish the accomplishments of an entire generation, or the difficulties they faced, but the generation prior dealt with the horrors of WW1 and entered mid/late-mid-life during the Great Depression. Child factory labor was not only legal, but increasing. There were no food safety standards. Advertisers could make any claims they wished. Something like 30% of infants died before their first birthday in some US cities. And that's not even touching on the fact this predates electricity, widespread adoption of the automobile, and the steam voyages to cross oceans. I'm sure the Lost Generation looked at the Greatest Generation and told them they had it easy.

This is also logical. Whether attributed to doing what is right before our chosen God(s), or simply attributed to an evolutionary desire to continue our genetic legacy, I believe--or at least hope--the goal of a generation is to make the world easier for the generation and generations who follow.

Red Leg said:

Theirs are a set of lifestyle goals characterized more by good enough rather than all I can be. Achieving a role that provides a solid, comfortable lifestyle while preserving personal time, autonomy, and low stress is the ultimate win. It isn't a lack of drive. Rather, it's a deliberate choice to prioritize balance over the corporate ladder. Clearly there are exceptions to that generalization, but on the whole, I think it is both accurate and a healthy way to engage the pursuit of happiness.

I frankly do not comprehend Millennials at all. Certainly they have faced economic headwinds, but my parents survived the Great Depression and then the most cataclysmic war in human history. Whining about their fate in life was never the remotest consideration for them. Spend an hour on X and the levels of self-pity and envy are almost overwhelming. Then, imagine submerging oneself for months and years at a time in such a stew of self-inflicted propaganda fueled by algorithms brewing an environment of echo chambers. That digital feedback loop achieves a level of psychological capture and behavioral conditioning that mid-20th-century state propagandists could only have dreamed of creating.

Click to expand...

There is an interesting subtext here: if lifestyle goals changed, is the issue the game (i.e. capitalism) or the win condition (i.e. what a person hopes to accomplish) or is the issue what caused the goals to change in the first place? Above I talk about a swimmer and the distance to shore. What if that person--for whatever reason--doesn't even want to go to shore in the first place? In our reality, they need to get to shore because they will drown.

Red Leg said:

As you can clearly see by this dialogue, such a mindset is likewise incomprehensible to most posting on this thread. Naturally, there are political forces standing by to take advantage of such conditioning.

I have absolutely nothing to offer in how to overcome such trajectory, but I genuinely fear its culmination.

Click to expand...

This is a more eloquent way of describing the concerns I was trying to voice.

The rest of your post is excellent and the input I was hoping to hear from others, so thank you.

LivingTheDream said:

We were the test cases when you needed a college email to access Facebook and then they opened it up to everyone and suddenly your Aunt wants to be your friend and comment on what you are doing. So now some still have it but it is for photos for family to see.

Click to expand...

This made me laugh a bit on the relevancy to my own life. I remember my sister being angry I was able to create a Facebook account in high school because she had "finally" been able to make one only a few months prior when she got her college email address. Really hitting home, I got rid of all my social media a decade ago after reading one too many family members posting about politics, the leading voice being my Aunt.

Big_Easy said:

And I would be more than happy for somebody to conduct such research. If you find a report that has done exactly this for all 10,000+ publicly traded companies during the time period, I wold love to read it. But the overall point would still remain the same. If the top 350 companies was a 1100% increase. What do you think the top 1000 companies would be? A 900% increase? Maybe a little less? What about the top 5000 companies? a 700-800% increase?

So assume a 700% increase for the top 5000 companies CEOs, and only a 24% increase for the median American. Does this make my point any less valid? Is 24% vs 750% substantially better than 24% vs 1100%?

Click to expand...

Big_Easy said:

Well the reason CEO compensation is structured in this manner is because capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary, earned income by the gov. The time period is from the late 70s to present day. The type of compensation is not really relevant, that they received the compensation is. Companies could compensate their front line employees with more stock too if they wished.

Click to expand...

I hesitated to respond directly to the CEO pay because I didn't think it was worthwhile, but I thought it was trying if, for no other reason, the viability changing a perspective on a singular point. I don't know what the CEO pay is for those bands any more than than the wages for workers. We aren't considering ancillary benefits to employees either when we are comparing CEO compensation packages inclusive of benefits. I also don't think you can simply assume those numbers and then use them to operate on. Your using data I rejected as an anchor which you are then reframing to shift, instead of using a different methodology. That's fine, but it's not going to lead anywhere. For the record, I have one concrete reference point on CEO vs worker pay I can talk confidently about and that is not sufficient to draw any conclusion from.

To quickly address the second comment, I was pointing that rules, regulations, and enforcement create incentives which influence behavior and whether these changes in behavior contributed to the perception which I think is worth exploring. For example, in a world where a CEO makes $1M cash, are the optics better or worse than a world where he makes $1M in equity? It almost certainly depends on the equity performance which, ironically, is probably a more fair compensation package for a CEO. This is the thought experiment I was more interested in honestly.

I'm offering clarity because I don't really want to sit and play devil's advocate for executive compensation packages. I'm more concerned about the outcome and the ordered effects than the event.

Big_Easy said:

Not all workers of big businesses are exploited, and not all are repressed. It's the inability for so many folks on here to even accept the possibility for this to occur that's surprising even for such a far-right group. Many on here tend to believe that big business is always a force of good, and government always a force of bad.

Click to expand...

I don't know people on the far right who hold that level of a binary view that no big business can ever be evil. I understand the point you are trying to make though. I was suggesting that if a person believes big business is exploitive the majority (or all) of the time, that person is going to hold a negative view of society--depending on the commonality of big business. I was not trying to defend (or attack) big business. It's a layer abstracted from that. Consider a world where a person believes big business is evil. There are 1,000,000 businesses and only 1 is big. They are probably happier than a world where the prevalence is inverted.

Thank you for defining it as well. The fact you chose $1b as a threshold is particularly interesting because it alludes, at least superficially, to the underlying psychology of where the line is drawn.

Big_Easy said:

I believe that I had two answers for this above. I'll give you a third; because at some point if enough people are dissatisfied with their lack of wealth, they'll turn to other, non-economic means of procuring it. And that would be very bad for the country as a whole.

Click to expand...

I think most people fundamentally agree to this point and it aligns with the concerns I was voicing. I wanted to know if your concerns were founded on economic structural realities or more social realities as evidenced by what I said later in my post.

Big_Easy said:

It was meant as a pejorative. However, by definition, most folks will not become a millionaire in our country. Hope is both a positive and a dangerous thing. A true double-edged sword.

Click to expand...

If we're talking households, it's something like 1 in 5 though. So, yes, most folks won't. My argument was not about the comment, but the fact it was made in the first place, and what the undercurrent of the comment alludes to.

Big_Easy said:

Correct, now please find a way explain that to the other forum members on here.

Click to expand...

Well, technically, I was restructuring your argument. It should be your job to convince them--not mine. That being said, I think this circles back to subjective reality. Good luck.

Big_Easy said:

AND other, older generations gaslighting us pretending that it didn't.

Click to expand...

This raises a thought I didn't previously consider: has constant interconnectedness led to "gaslighting" by older generations creating a feedback loop of criticism?

Similarly, is it more prevalent now than in the past as a result of the ease of communication? If we assume every generation thinks the next generation has it easy--which anecdotally my grandfather's interactions with his sons supports--is it a non-issue when the "gaslighting" can only occur at family meals as opposed to every minute of every day? What impact would that have?

Those are interesting thoughts.

Big_Easy said:

I don't think we've figured that out yet. Let keep at it though.

Click to expand...

I think this is the actual conversation worth having.

TX049 said:

This is a fun thought experiment if you'll permit me some leeway to build off of your statement and circle back to where you and @Big_Easy disagree. Your father is suggesting that successful people would continue to be successful under different circumstances. I'm inclined to agree with this, but that's because, presumably, both your father and I are using a similar level of "different" for our assumption. Your dad's example is that he has health and an ability to work. If he didn't have health and has no means to work (i.e. an infant abandoned in the forest), his example fails. We can (or should) at least all come to agreement there is a boundary.

There's a bit of a simplification here, but imagine you are swimming in the ocean 50 feet from shore. Presumably you can swim back. Now I drop you 50 yards off shore. You can work harder and make it back. What happens at a mile? 100 miles offshore? At some point, the only way you make it back is by a boat named Luck.

Big_Easy believes we are at (or are at least approaching) this point for the majority of Americans. My earlier point is that circumstances are always changing, so my argument suggests we don't know where the point lies in a generational sense, but the perception of our distance to or from that point is what matters anyway. The distance from shore could be 10 feet, but if the person is convinced it's 10 miles, are they going to try to swim back, or just accept their fate? In a sense, perception defines reality.

This is one of the reasons I chose to engage in the first place and my concerns that he was simply trolling. Even if his entire personality is a fabrication, the underlying current of his opinions likely aren't, and that's the value. I'm not trying to engage in a point-by-point political debate either. I'm interested in the underlying grievance and how he arrived to it because, fundamentally, that's what I see as the issue that needs resolved on a broader level. I think most things are secondary or tertiary (and so on) effects.

It's a fundamentally interesting question. One point I want to interject is the origin story for a lot of the political debates holds WW2 as the foundational moment. It's why the "Greatest Generation" is the "Greatest." Not to diminish the accomplishments of an entire generation, or the difficulties they faced, but the generation prior dealt with the horrors of WW1 and entered mid/late-mid-life during the Great Depression. Child factory labor was not only legal, but increasing. There were no food safety standards. Advertisers could make any claims they wished. Something like 30% of infants died before their first birthday in some US cities. And that's not even touching on the fact this predates electricity, widespread adoption of the automobile, and the steam voyages to cross oceans. I'm sure the Lost Generation looked at the Greatest Generation and told them they had it easy.

This is also logical. Whether attributed to doing what is right before our chosen God(s), or simply attributed to an evolutionary desire to continue our genetic legacy, I believe--or at least hope--the goal of a generation is to make the world easier for the generation and generations who follow.

There is an interesting subtext here: if lifestyle goals changed, is the issue the game (i.e. capitalism) or the win condition (i.e. what a person hopes to accomplish) or is the issue what caused the goals to change in the first place? Above I talk about a swimmer and the distance to shore. What if that person--for whatever reason--doesn't even want to go to shore in the first place? In our reality, they need to get to shore because they will drown.

This is a more eloquent way of describing the concerns I was trying to voice.

The rest of your post is excellent and the input I was hoping to hear from others, so thank you.

This made me laugh a bit on the relevancy to my own life. I remember my sister being angry I was able to create a Facebook account in high school because she had "finally" been able to make one only a few months prior when she got her college email address. Really hitting home, I got rid of all my social media a decade ago after reading one too many family members posting about politics, the leading voice being my Aunt.



I hesitated to respond directly to the CEO pay because I didn't think it was worthwhile, but I thought it was trying if, for no other reason, the viability changing a perspective on a singular point. I don't know what the CEO pay is for those bands any more than than the wages for workers. We aren't considering ancillary benefits to employees either when we are comparing CEO compensation packages inclusive of benefits. I also don't think you can simply assume those numbers and then use them to operate on. Your using data I rejected as an anchor which you are then reframing to shift, instead of using a different methodology. That's fine, but it's not going to lead anywhere. For the record, I have one concrete reference point on CEO vs worker pay I can talk confidently about and that is not sufficient to draw any conclusion from.

To quickly address the second comment, I was pointing that rules, regulations, and enforcement create incentives which influence behavior and whether these changes in behavior contributed to the perception which I think is worth exploring. For example, in a world where a CEO makes $1M cash, are the optics better or worse than a world where he makes $1M in equity? It almost certainly depends on the equity performance which, ironically, is probably a more fair compensation package for a CEO. This is the thought experiment I was more interested in honestly.

I'm offering clarity because I don't really want to sit and play devil's advocate for executive compensation packages. I'm more concerned about the outcome and the ordered effects than the event.

I don't know people on the far right who hold that level of a binary view that no big business can ever be evil. I understand the point you are trying to make though. I was suggesting that if a person believes big business is exploitive the majority (or all) of the time, that person is going to hold a negative view of society--depending on the commonality of big business. I was not trying to defend (or attack) big business. It's a layer abstracted from that. Consider a world where a person believes big business is evil. There are 1,000,000 businesses and only 1 is big. They are probably happier than a world where the prevalence is inverted.

Thank you for defining it as well. The fact you chose $1b as a threshold is particularly interesting because it alludes, at least superficially, to the underlying psychology of where the line is drawn.

I think most people fundamentally agree to this point and it aligns with the concerns I was voicing. I wanted to know if your concerns were founded on economic structural realities or more social realities as evidenced by what I said later in my post.

If we're talking households, it's something like 1 in 5 though. So, yes, most folks won't. My argument was not about the comment, but the fact it was made in the first place, and what the undercurrent of the comment alludes to.

Well, technically, I was restructuring your argument. It should be your job to convince them--not mine. That being said, I think this circles back to subjective reality. Good luck.

This raises a thought I didn't previously consider: has constant interconnectedness led to "gaslighting" by older generations creating a feedback loop of criticism?

Similarly, is it more prevalent now than in the past as a result of the ease of communication? If we assume every generation thinks the next generation has it easy--which anecdotally my grandfather's interactions with his sons supports--is it a non-issue when the "gaslighting" can only occur at family meals as opposed to every minute of every day? What impact would that have?

Those are interesting thoughts.

I think this is the actual conversation worth having.

Click to expand...

As for my father’s example, of course it assumes and is relating to people healthy enough to work. That’s a given. I didn’t mention the health issue as we all know a person has to be healthy enough to work. My father was comparing himself to other healthy people who choose not to work as hard or have the same attitude to succeed, when presented with obstacles.

As for swimming in the ocean, based on the experiences I see in my immediate and extended family and those of my employees and friends, I don’t think we are past the point of no return and that point depends significantly on attitude and work ethic, not just factors beyond our control.

Big_Easy said:

Amazing how you still can't stay on topic for even a single post. And how you reroute every conversation back to immigration.

Click to expand...

It’s an additional idea added to a post. Are you now the posting police? I know of no rules stating that I cannot make an additional point. I do take notice of the personal attack, rather than countering my points.

Big_Easy said:

The corporate hierarchy is a pyramid. At what level should one's earned wages constitute a livable wage? At what point should somebody be able to afford to live? High how before the math maths out for them? And if the wages aren't livable, why even bother working? Maybe that's what the 785,000 homeless Americans have decided?

Click to expand...

Oh so all employees should be paid the same or not be required to move up the chain or pyramid? It is impossible in this instance to make a blanket statement about each and every job and business about at what point the employees start earning a living wage. It sure isn’t a dishwasher, shelf stocker or burger flipper and that is understood by nearly everyone except Marxists. Almost all businesses offer entry level jobs that are not intended to be the last stop for someone unless they are slacking.

Why bother working? How about to start up the chain or pyramid and be successful? Help your family? Provide a safe happy environment in case you want children? If people are not smart enough to understand those things, it is not the fault of the rest of us or our responsibility to provide for able-bodied slackers.

Do you guys type this stuff on your IPhone?

iPads? PC? The sheer volume of words generated in a short time is amazing to me. I pretty much limit my typing to traffic signals. It would take me three weeks to compose such a voluminous post, assuming I could maintain my train of thought for that long.

Scott CWO said:

As for swimming in the ocean, based on the experiences I see in my immediate and extended family and those of my employees and friends, I don’t think we are past the point of no return and that point depends significantly on attitude and work ethic, not just factors beyond our control.

Click to expand...

We're in agreement. My point is to try and understand how and why others feel differently. Especially since the negative perspective seems to be on the rise. What's most bizarre to me are the people who manage to over come barriers still holding the opinion that others can't. I don't know if it's exceptionalism, some form of survivor's guilt denialism, or the simple fact we're applying the wrong conditions on what makes a person successful and, therefore, happy. His original comment coincided with a friend ranting to me at length about the impossibility of succeeding in "today's America" without the recognition that this same friend was raised in a relatively low income household--even losing his father in high school--and is now making around a quarter million a year as a consultant. He lives in an extremely low cost of living area (his annual income is just slightly under median home price), owns a sailboat, and drives a Corvette. He's my age, never married/no kids, and he's miserable. He makes a lot of the points that Big_Easy makes and they both share a seemingly negative outlook. It's interesting to me. I don't understand why.

Flipper Dude said:

Do you guys type this stuff on your IPhone?

iPads? PC? The sheer volume of words generated in a short time is amazing to me. I pretty much limit my typing to traffic signals. It would take me three weeks to compose such a voluminous post, assuming I could maintain my train of thought for that long.

Click to expand...

PC, mostly. I can type nearly as fast as I can speak after spending an inordinate amount of my youth and young adult life typing messages to friends on whatever chat platform was the flavor of the week at the time. Add in using a computer for a living and, well, this is the result.

What @Big_Easy failed to account for why executive compensation is paid in options, is that Wages are capped at 1 Million as a deduction. Not because the executives want to be paid at Capital Gains rates.

wesheltonj said:

What @Big_Easy failed to account for why executive compensation is paid in options, is that Wages are capped at 1 Million as a deduction. Not because the executives want to be paid at Capital Gains rates.

Click to expand...

Funny story on that issue. When I started with my company, my compensation was approx 1/3 cash (salary and annual performance bonus and not anywhere near a million) and 2/3's performance oriented stocks. A third vested immediately and the remainder over the next three years creating a rolling wave of maturing stocks. What most don't realize is that those stocks are treated and realized as income and taxed as W2 wages the year they are paid - not just when they mature. That establishes the cost basis for the stock. Like most leaving the military (and with two kids in college), we did not do so with a huge amount of savings. In the early years, to address the resulting somewhat staggering tax burden to the IRS, I was having to sell stocks as short term capital gains to pay the frigging income tax while generating capital gains for the following year. It took three years to crawl out of that tax trap.