General / National Strike?

bad_teammate · June 25, 2018

3 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

It's not silly rhetoric; it's simply a matter of definitions. Regardless, I do not care about the use of the term; I was not the one who mentioned communism; I was merely pointing out that the term was not misapplied.

It was. At no point did I advocate the abolition of private property or private ownership of the means of production, which are the central components of Communism. Words have meanings.

"Communism" doesn't mean "a version of capitalism I don't like".

Edited June 25, 2018 by bad_teammate

June 25, 2018

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Aphelion:
Do you think there is an actual disconnect between the power of the Top 1% and the power of the government? Do you not see how increasingly stratified extreme wealth concentrates government power in those hands?

You and I disagree on percentages, not the actual existence of inheritance taxes and progressive income taxes, right? You're going all "MARXIST!" because we disagree on percentages?

To address your first question, I think that if the state has the power to take significant percentages of the wealth of private citizens, then this worsens the problem of power concentration. The power simply transfers over to the state. The state has less effective power checks compared to private citizens.

Yes, we mostly disagree on percentages. Percentages are a big deal with taxes and their effects, as you well know.

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It was. At no point did I advocate the abolition of private property or private ownership of the means of production, which are the central components of Communism. Words have meanings.

"Communism" doesn't mean "a version of capitalism I don't like".

There are many ideas entailed by communism. I'm assuming that you've read the communist manifesto. The two points you forwarded were either heavily inspired by (either knowingly or unknowingly/indirectly) or directly taken from points 2 and 3 given in section II of the communist manifesto, as I pointed out in a previous post.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Guest

Incredulity · June 25, 2018

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Most of them don't realize "commie" doesn't really have any bite anymore. It's cute.

TIL calling a commie, a commie is ineffectual.

David Dennison · June 25, 2018

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

TIL calling a commie, a commie is ineffectual.

Calling a racist racist still works. Hoooo boy, does it work. Wypipo get pissed.

bad_teammate · June 25, 2018

3 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

To address your first question, I think that if the state has the power to take significant percentages of the wealth of private citizens, then this worsens the problem of power concentration. The power simply transfers over to the state. The state has less effective power checks compared to private citizens.

In a democracy, the state is the citizens. It's just about who has the most influence.

A hallmark of authoritarian regimes is extreme wealth concentration.

Quote

Yes, we mostly disagree on percentages. Percentages are a big deal with taxes and their effects, as you well know.

Yes, it's a big deal, but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the economic system. There isn't some magic taxation line between "capitalism" and "communism".

Quote

There are many ideas entailed by communism. I'm assuming that you've read the communist manifesto. The two points you forwarded were either heavily inspired by (either directly or unknowingly/indirectly) or directly taken from points 2 and 3 given in section II of the communist manifesto, as I pointed out in a previous post.

Progressive taxation and income taxation pre-date Marxism. It makes no sense to take those two concepts, which are UNIVERSAL in capitalist societies, and say they are attributed to Marxism.

You might as well say air is Marxist because Karl liked to breathe.

bad_teammate · June 25, 2018

Your belt doesn't match your shoes... you COMMUNIST!

deadshank · June 25, 2018

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Your belt doesn't match your shoes... you COMMUNIST!

Well...that is a dead giveaway.

Edited June 25, 2018 by deadshank

June 25, 2018

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

In a democracy, the state is the citizens. It's just about who has the most influence.

A hallmark of authoritarian regimes is extreme wealth concentration.

Yes, it's a big deal, but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the economic system. There isn't some magic taxation line between "capitalism" and "communism".

Progressive taxation and income taxation pre-date Marxism. It makes no sense to take those two concepts, which are UNIVERSAL in capitalist societies, and say they are attributed to Marxism.

You might as well say air is Marxist because Karl liked to breathe.

In a democracy, the state is the citizens.

This is true for a pure democracy where every citizen votes on every issue, but of course there are no governments in existence like that and so the idea that the state is the citizens is absurd. The state is nothing more than the individuals who control it. The most powerful individuals throughout history and alive today are those who directly make decisions on behalf of the state. Their interests are their own and it is common for those interests to have little to do with the well being of the citizens.

I don't care that much about the communism label. As I mentioned before, I didn't first apply it. If you think your ideas are completely uninfluenced by communist ideology, then so be it. Let's both agree to drop the discussion on it because it is pointless on the merit of the tax suggestions you've given.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Guest

RandomIdoit · June 25, 2018

40 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why are you talking about what YOU would do? We're talking about billionaires and what they do, not guys on this forum who will barely leave their kids six figures in cash.

I already answered that but you chose to focus on the reason why I think that. You or I do not know how they would react. Maybe if you were in their shoes, you would keep making billions of dollars more knowing it was going to be taken away after you were gone, but that doesn't mean they would.

40 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't care what would make the billionaires happy. I don't even know why you would ask me that.

Because you are under the assumption that they would just continue doing what they have been doing. This is bad logic. No one is asking you to care, just take that into consideration when you speculate on what they would do.

40 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, massive inheritances (in the tens of millions+) are extremely bad, yes.

Garnishing someone's money because it's "too much" is extremely bad, yes.

ChickenSandwich · June 25, 2018

4 hours ago, seven said:

Statements like this just show your fundamental misunderstanding of how taxes work.

This thread has it all. Hugo’s fourth sock checking in.

Hugo Stiglitz · June 25, 2018

What is a sock?

deadshank · June 25, 2018

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

deadshank:
You use the word "confiscate" to refer to taxation in order to creat emotional melodrama. It's like someone calling taxation "theft". Use ideas instead of lame rhetorical tricks.

You want it to be that way but it just ain't so. Very aggy of you to keep repeating the same untrue statement to yourself and anyone that will listen in hopes of convincing the world that it is true.

bad_teammate · June 25, 2018

6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

You or I do not know how they would react.

So why do you say things like...

- "What they would actually do is find a loophole like they do now and store the excess of the $5 million somewhere else."
- "You could say their pride or ambition but I think they would just be sitting on the beach earning 20%."
- "They don't just sit on a beach because there currently is not a cap on how much money they can leave to their inheritors."

Either you know them or you don't. You keep trying to have it both ways.

The self-starters who earn billions do so largely because of the challenge. They keep pursuing billions because they are addicted to the challenges. It's obvious if you look at who the actual self-starting billionaires are. They want to do big stuff all the time until they're dead. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Larry Page, Richard Branson, Sergey Brin, etc...

No credible argument could be made that any of those guys would suddenly switch their internal motivational drives off if their kids couldn't inherit a billion each. It's a fucking absurd thing to even consider and it's embarrassing for you to keep saying it.

Quote

Garnishing someone's money because it's "too much" is extremely bad, yes.

It's taxation as it has existed forever.

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What is a sock?

They think we're all the same person. They are paranoid and stupid.

17 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The most powerful individuals throughout history and alive today are those who directly make decisions on behalf of the state. Their interests are their own and it is common for those interests to have little to do with the well being of the citizens.

And who is more likely to have influence over the decisions of the state, a wealthy man or a poor man?

RandomIdoit · June 25, 2018

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So why do you say things like...

- "What they would actually do is find a loophole like they do now and store the excess of the $5 million somewhere else."
- "You could say their pride or ambition but I think they would just be sitting on the beach earning 20%."
- "They don't just sit on a beach because there currently is not a cap on how much money they can leave to their inheritors."

Either you know them or you don't. You keep trying to have it both ways.

I have already said that it is speculation. Just like you are speculating. Do YOU know what they would do? Of course not. But that doesn't stop you from thinking you know what they would do and what their motivations are.

bad_teammate · June 25, 2018

I am speculating based on observations of actual billionaires. I can name a lot of billionaires who have spoken out against large inheritances. I have provided examples of billionaires who clearly were not motivated at all by the idea of establishing generational billions-level wealth.

You have provided no names and no specifics or even any respectable logic.

Name a billionaire who started what he started with the primary (not even sole, let me make it easier for you) motivation of setting up a line of billionaire nobility. Just one. That's not even getting into the question of whether or not that's a good thing, i just want an example of fucking ONE.

That is not how these guys work, and you know it.

I encourage you to look through this UBS study result.

RandomIdoit · June 25, 2018

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am speculating based on observations of actual billionaires. I can name a lot of billionaires who have spoken out against large inheritances. I have provided examples of billionaires who clearly were not motivated at all by the idea of establishing generational billions-level wealth.

You have provided no names and no specifics or even any respectable logic.

Name a billionaire who started what he started with the primary (not even sole, let me make it easier for you) motivation of setting up a line of billionaire nobility. Just one. That's not even getting into the question of whether or not that's a good thing, i just want an example of fucking ONE.

That is not how these guys work, and you know it.

I encourage you to look through this UBS study result.

Once again, you are not taking into consideration the taxes that YOU suggested. That changes the whole landscape. Right now, it's not important to them (as you say). However, if you impose these taxes on some of the money they earned at a rate of 100%, how can you assume they still act the same?

NotActuallyALonghorn · June 25, 2018

5 million limit for estates would ruin many family run farms. It's not hard for the land plus equipment to exceed that number on paper. So the government takes it and, what, auctions it off? So a big farming conglomerate can buy it out and eventually we see the death of family farms? How about a small business? The government ain't gonna run it. Guess they have to auction it. So small businesses will die as well. As they get bought up by large corporations over the course of a few generations. That seems like an ideal society.

bad_teammate · June 25, 2018

19 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

5 million limit for estates would ruin many family run farms. It's not hard for the land plus equipment to exceed that number on paper. So the government takes it and, what, auctions it off? So a big farming conglomerate can buy it out and eventually we see the death of family farms? How about a small business? The government ain't gonna run it. Guess they have to auction it. So small businesses will die as well. As they get bought up by large corporations over the course of a few generations. That seems like an ideal society.

Good questions, but at the root of them is the assumption that there are only two options:
1) sole proprietorship
2) government-run business

Nowhere in anything I proposed was the concept of the government taking over the operation of a business, so that's a straw man to begin with.

The smart way to run it would be a corporation in which the inheritors would not have a stake worth more than $5M with the "wealth", as it were, being spread among multiple parties interested in the maintenance and operation of the business. Capital assets then become property of the corporation instead of the individual inheritors.

24 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Once again, you are not taking into consideration the taxes that YOU suggested. That changes the whole landscape. Right now, it's not important to them (as you say). However, if you impose these taxes on some of the money they earned at a rate of 100%, how can you assume they still act the same?

The status of the inheritance tax was not a motivator for them to start. You're making a big (and terrible) assumption that the inheritance tax not only becomes very important, but OVERTAKES their initial motivators.

You didn't even bother looking through the studies of millionaires/billionaires I linked, did you?

RandomIdoit · June 25, 2018

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The status of the inheritance tax was not a motivator for them to start. You're making a big (and terrible) assumption that the inheritance tax not only becomes very important, but OVERTAKES their initial motivators.

You didn't even bother looking through the studies of millionaires/billionaires I linked, did you?

Can you find where I said it was their motivation for them to start? If I said that, I was wrong. I said that I think that they would have no motivation to continue making more billions if it was all going to be taxed away. And no I did not look at the studies. Was taking all of their wealth over $5 million per inheritor a parameter in this study? If not, then I do not see it as relevant to how they would react if such a law was passed.

MaybeACoordinator · June 25, 2018

Hey y'all Gilded Age mofos, if you are so against higher estate taxes, and believe you should have the right to dispose of it as you see fit, just set up some foundations while you are still alive.

Leave your kids enough to see to it that they don't have to work, ever, if they want to be parasites.

And give your money to the charities of your choice.

Like that Marxist Andrew Carnegie.

David Dennison · June 25, 2018

5 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Hey y'all Gilded Age mofos, if you are so against higher estate taxes, and believe you should have the right to dispose of it as you see fit, just set up some foundations while you are still alive.

Leave your kids enough to see to it that they don't have to work, ever, if they want to be parasites.

And give your money to the charities of your choice.

Like that Marxist Andrew Carnegie.

If you have an estate that is subject to the estate tax, you did some really poor planning.

GHOSTUSER · June 25, 2018

I think what is being lost here is that billionaires getting richer in and of itself is not really the problem and that is where bad_teammate, Hugo and DD are getting lost in the weeds. I will agree with my leftist friends that Citizens United, the worst SC decision since Dred Scott, has allowed billionaires to further distort what was left of our representative democracy. Last week, the NYT ran an article about how the fucking Koch brothers are funding massive anti-transit campaigns in cities across the country. Those bastards were able to get a mass transit plan get voted down in Nashville. I have a major fucking problem with that and anyone who gives a shit about this country should as well. Oligarchs with billions shouldn’t be able to sway local elections in cities they don’t fucking live in. Those bastards aren’t sitting in traffic in these cities. We need a fucking Constitutional convention to ban what the Kochs are doing (same thing applies to Soros) and have real representative democracy. The 2nd Congressional District in Houston is a gerrymandered hodgepodge of disparate communities that includes West U to Atascocita. That’s fucking bullshit and not what the Founding Fathers intended. Neither are career politicians who have never worked a day of their life in the private sector like Chuck Schumer. Fix what I’m saying and let the people have a voice again and let them determine how to tax billionaires.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

David Dennison · June 25, 2018

8 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I think what is being lost here is that billionaires getting richer in and of itself is not really the problem and that is where bad_teammate, Hugo and DD are getting lost in the weeds. I will agree with my leftist friends that Citizens United, the worst SC decision since Dred Scott, has allowed billionaires to further distort what was left of our representative democracy. Last week, the NYT ran an article about how the fucking Koch brothers are funding massive anti-transit campaigns in cities across the country. Those bastards were able to get a mass transit plan get voted down in Nashville. I have a major fucking problem with that and anyone who gives a shit about this country should as well. Oligarchs with billions shouldn’t be able to sway local elections in cities they don’t fucking live in. Those bastards aren’t sitting in traffic in these cities. We need a fucking Constitutional convention to ban what the Kochs are doing (same thing applies to Soros) and have real representative democracy. The 2nd Congressional District in Houston is a gerrymandered hodgepodge of disparate communities that includes West U to Atascocita. That’s fucking bullshit and not what the Founding Fathers intended. Neither are career politicians who have never worked a day of their life in the private sector like Chuck Schumer. Fix what I’m saying and let the people have a voice again and let them determine how to tax billionaires.

Just so we're clear on the estate tax, I favor what was on the books before W.'s tax cut.

bad_teammate · June 25, 2018

5 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I said that I think that they would have no motivation to continue making more billions if it was all going to be taxed away.

Your argument is that a factor that was not important to them at the beginning would become so important later it would eliminate the factors that started them off. This is absurd and not how humans work. It's not how billionaires work. They are driven by ego and ambition. They aren't even motivated to become billionaires as a goal, they're motivated to do big things that turn them into billionaires.

RandomIdoit · June 25, 2018

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Your argument is that a factor that was not important to them at the beginning would become so important later it would eliminate the factors that started them off. This is absurd and not how humans work. It's not how billionaires work. They are driven by ego and ambition. They aren't even motivated to become billionaires as a goal, they're motivated to do big things that turn them into billionaires.

My argument is that there was no law that said they would lose all of their money over $5 million per inheritor, but imposing such a law would become important to them and change the way they "work".

bad_teammate · June 25, 2018

1 hour ago, RandomIdoit said:

My argument is that there was no law that said they would lose all of their money over $5 million per inheritor, but imposing such a law would become important to them and change the way they "work".

We've gone from them stopping entirely to this vagueness. Excellent. Pretty soon you'll stop arguing reflexively and actually pay attention to the sources provided to you.

David Dennison · June 25, 2018

I'd love to know the percentage of individuals in the 1% who actually work.

I bet there are a lot of Waltons, Johnsons, Kochs, etc.

RandomIdoit · June 26, 2018

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

We've gone from them stopping entirely to this vagueness. Excellent. Pretty soon you'll stop arguing reflexively and actually pay attention to the sources provided to you.

Maybe you should read what you wrote.

This is absurd and not how humans work. It's not how billionaires work.

F250 · June 26, 2018

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The self-starters who earn billions do so largely because of the challenge. They keep pursuing billions because they are addicted to the challenges. It's obvious if you look at who the actual self-starting billionaires are. They want to do big stuff all the time until they're dead. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Larry Page, Richard Branson, Sergey Brin, etc...

I agree with this, these are the people that make up what Thomas Jefferson referred to as the natural aristocracy. Since natural aristocracy membership is gained by merit not inheritance. Resetting the "game" every generation ensures a meritocracy in America.

We probably don't agree on most economic ideas but I think preventing massive generational wealth is better for our society. The idea is lined up with our nation's founding fathers who wanted to prevent a european style aristocracy from forming here but instead retaining a democracy rooted in merit. Granted, we have no class of titled nobility in America, we have seen the rise of the "manufacturing" class that Tocqueville said might give birth to an American aristocracy. I don't see this class ever forming into a European type of aristocracy but with the concentration of wealth it has a similar effect.

Edited June 26, 2018 by F250

bad_teammate · June 26, 2018

29 minutes ago, F250 said:

Granted, we have no class of titled nobility in America, we have seen the rise of the "manufacturing" class that Tocqueville said might give birth to an American aristocracy.

Exactly what Marx described, as well, very presciently.

June 26, 2018

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I'd love to know the percentage of individuals in the 1% who actually work.

I bet there are a lot of Waltons, Johnsons, Kochs, etc.

Oh there are plenty pal.

blackmarketbaby · June 26, 2018

Eight pages about change and statistics and the word "innovation" has not been used once

ChiTownDoc · June 26, 2018

8 hours ago, deadshank said:

You want it to be that way but it just ain't so. Very aggy of you to keep repeating the same untrue statement to yourself and anyone that will listen in hopes of convincing the world that it is true.

Holy shit, that sounds exactly like Trump’s modus operandi. Are you a wizard?

ChickenSandwich · June 26, 2018

1111

Edited June 26, 2018 by ChickenSandwich
1234

blackmarketbaby · June 26, 2018

Topic has gone sherbert

MaybeACoordinator · June 26, 2018

6 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I'd love to know the percentage of individuals in the 1% who actually work.

I bet there are a lot of Waltons, Johnsons, Kochs, etc.

I used to know this couple that were the children of Sam Walton's attorney. They never worked and they still don't and now they live in a palace in Newport Beach, California. They earned that money. Ain't that America? /CSB

blackmarketbaby · June 26, 2018

27 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I used to know this couple that were the children of Sam Walton's attorney. They never worked and they still don't and now they live in a palace in Newport Beach, California. They earned that money. Ain't that America? /CSB

Hotel they remember the sunset

RDCanecutter · June 26, 2018

On 6/24/2018 at 8:39 PM, bad_teammate said:

The overall ethic is this: The wealth of the nation is primarily a product of the mass of its workers, not simply those who control the capital behind the means of production. As such, the wealth of the nation should primarily be used to the benefit of the mass of workers.

Just a style critique-- phrases like "mass of workers" make me think we'll all be donning our overalls and flat caps and hopping the company trolley down to the man-hole cover factory. It's got a very 1930s vibe to it. Which I sorta like, because as an artist who reads I figure I'll get Red Scared and run down to Mexico City to get knee-walking drunk every weeknight with Frida and Diego and Ashley Judd and the gang.

But to someone less mural-friendly than I, "mass of workers" could sound pretty old-school commie.

Incredulity · June 26, 2018

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Just a style critique-- phrases like "mass of workers" make me think we'll all be donning our overalls and flat caps and hopping the company trolley down to the man-hole cover factory. It's got a very 1930s vibe to it. Which I sorta like, because as an artist who reads I figure I'll get Red Scared and run down to Mexico City to get knee-walking drunk every weeknight with Frida and Diego and Ashley Judd and the gang.

But to someone less mural-friendly than I, "mass of workers" could sound pretty old-school commie.

Umm.... you were told upthread that "commie" is a compliment. Get with modern thinking comrade.

RDCanecutter · June 26, 2018

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Umm.... you were told upthread that "commie" is a compliment. Get with modern thinking comrade.

Stalinist commie, or Trotsky commie? I look terrible in ice picks.

Incredulity · June 26, 2018

Also, its a horseshit arguement.

It ain't the workers who are on the hook when the real shit goes down. Its the owners of the capital, and I aint talking about Fortune 500 conglomeretes. I am talking about middle market small businesses who are family owned, have all their wealth tied to the company and most likely personally gurantee the whole enchilada to get a bank to lend them enough to grow the company.

Hugo Stiglitz · June 26, 2018

25 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I am talking about middle market small businesses who are family owned, have all their wealth tied to the company and most likely personally gurantee the whole enchilada to get a bank to lend them enough to grow the company.

This group gets squeezed way too much on nearly everything. They were probably a big part of Trump’s success. No one is out there trying to bail these folks out when things go south.

F250 · June 26, 2018

14 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Stalinist commie, or Trotsky commie? I look terrible in ice picks.

Bukharin would probably be a better compliment over Trotsky or Stalin. Bukharinism was pretty influential on the more civilized communist leaders like Gorbachev and Xiaoping.

RDCanecutter · June 26, 2018

1 hour ago, F250 said:

Bukharin would probably be a better compliment over Trotsky or Stalin. Bukharinism was pretty influential on the more civilized communist leaders like Gorbachev and Xiaoping.

Now see, THIS is the kind of thing we'd be discussing at the Artists and Sculptors Collective in between tequila shots.

ChickenSandwich · June 26, 2018

4 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

Stalinist commie, or Trotsky commie? I look terrible in ice picks.

Commie is compliment, but Commie- Nazis must be stopped

bad_teammate · June 26, 2018

5 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

Just a style critique-- phrases like "mass of workers" make me think we'll all be donning our overalls and flat caps and hopping the company trolley down to the man-hole cover factory. It's got a very 1930s vibe to it. Which I sorta like, because as an artist who reads I figure I'll get Red Scared and run down to Mexico City to get knee-walking drunk every weeknight with Frida and Diego and Ashley Judd and the gang.

But to someone less mural-friendly than I, "mass of workers" could sound pretty old-school commie.

The Red Scare worked, for sure, and any discussion of labor automatically sounds Communist.

4 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Also, its a horseshit arguement.

It ain't the workers who are on the hook when the real shit goes down. Its the owners of the capital, and I aint talking about Fortune 500 conglomeretes. I am talking about middle market small businesses who are family owned, have all their wealth tied to the company and most likely personally gurantee the whole enchilada to get a bank to lend them enough to grow the company.

What "real shit" are you talking about? Are you saying a capital-owner might lose their wealth and find themselves on the same economic level of the workers they previously hired?

Incredulity · June 26, 2018

I guess you are assuming all workers are practically broke. Which I don't agree with, but yes if a middle market business fails the owners often get wiped out. That is the risk reward scenerio that is the basis of capitalism.

David Dennison · June 26, 2018

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I guess you are assuming all workers are practically broke. Which I don't agree with, but yes if a middle market business fails the owners often get wiped out. That is the risk reward scenerio that is the basis of capitalism.

Not all, but most wage earners are.

bad_teammate · June 26, 2018

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I guess you are assuming all workers are practically broke. Which I don't agree with, but yes if a middle market business fails the owners often get wiped out. That is the risk reward scenerio that is the basis of capitalism.

It's not a matter of whether or not you agree, but workers for small business don't get rich working for the small business unless the worker is not simply a worker and is actually a capital partner.

"Oh no, I might stop being rich!" != "Oh no, I am poor!"

Incredulity · June 26, 2018

They may or may not get "rich", but most of them make a living many with a 401k, benefits...... guess what that 401K is their's no matter what.

FYI, workers aren't chained to equipment any more.

Sign In

General / National Strike?

Recommended Posts

bad_teammate 13566

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Incredulity 11880

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 19569

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13566

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13566

Link to comment

Share on other sites

deadshank 24654

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RandomIdoit 739

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ChickenSandwich 9971

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Link to comment

Share on other sites

deadshank 24654

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13566

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RandomIdoit 739

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13566

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RandomIdoit 739

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotActuallyALonghorn 5005

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13566

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RandomIdoit 739

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MaybeACoordinator 8350

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 19569

Link to comment

Share on other sites

GHOSTUSER 361

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 19569

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13566

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RandomIdoit 739

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13566

Link to comment