I think statements like, "I've never met a poor person," sound like a Romney campaign gaffe. There is no context in which that's not a terrible, out of touch thing to say.
As TheOrange pointed out, if you've ever bought groceries, filled up on gas, ordered take out, you've met poor people. That you didn't take this into account says a lot about you; they're invisible, non-existent.
I did not say I never met a poor person. I said I never really knew anyone who was poor, or if I did, I had no idea they were poor. You don't have meaningful interactions with the cashier at the grocery store, and you certainly do not gain exposure to a different lifestyle or point of view from it. Of people I really knew, to my knowledge no one was really struggling, and "poor" meant "parents did not buy them a car" or "they can't afford to go out to eat with their group of friends." Maybe I knew people on foodstamps or some other form of government assistance, but if I did, it was not apparent, and not something people talked about. This is what I mean when I say I would have had to make an effort to get to know poor people. I lived in a homogenous town in a county full of homogenous towns, went to a college that was also very homogenous, and then went to a very expensive elite law school. Now, I mostly know other lawyers and the people who can afford to live in my town and community. If there were people who were really poor at any of those stages I just did not see it, because they did not make it obvious, and if someone doesn't talk about being poor, (1) you have no way to know that they are poor and (2) you have no way to actually get exposure to the issues they face because they are poor. I don't think this is some crazy, sheltered, out of touch upbringing and world view. It's just a byproduct of living in areas that are not accessible to the poor and people not wanting to share their money troubles openly. I guess my question is how exactly would someone who is not poor and does not live near poor people get exposure to the problems of the poor without making a deliberate effort?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
See that last bit is really key to me, it's like people would be scared to expose themselves to the people beneath them.
It seems myopic when you look at it logically, but it must stem from an awareness of something.
I guess it is possible it's just a product of fear mongering though.
I think there is a lot that contributes to these feelings. When I was a kid, anytime we drove through a "bad area" my parents would relock the car doors, and that really reinforced a perception of danger. Also, when you live in a low crime area, the town next door which is low crime but has some crime sounds dangerous by comparison. So I (and my friends and peers) grew up not going to the bad areas at night, and generally avoiding them unless there was a specific reason to go. It becomes self reinforcing. Of course, the "bad" areas in Northern NJ also happened to be the only places that weren't 90%+ white, which reinforces all kinds of other stereotypes, but that's a whole different issue.
He's saying he doesn't have poor friends, or hang with poor people. He's never been at the club with the boys and had to listen to one of them talk about how he's getting a cheaper item on the menu because his bank account was overdrafted when a check was cashed at the wrong time, or about how his daughter is doing well in the public school spelling bee.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
He's saying he doesn't have poor friends, or hang with poor people. He's never been at the club with the boys and had to listen to one of them talk about how he's getting a cheaper item on the menu because his bank account was overdrafted when a check was cashed at the wrong time, or about how his daughter is doing well in the public school spelling bee.
I know that you understand there is a difference between not poor and crazy rich (my town growing up was definitely not crazy rich). I went to public school, and my kids will too (albeit in a nationally ranked school system). But my town growing up was pretty firmly well off (there wasn't even anywhere you could rent a house and all but one condo complex were seniors only), so it would have been really hard for poor people to live there. Is this really so surprising?
To me, never meeting someone you knew was poor is really hard to understand. I meet poor people all the time. In fact, there are several poor people that everyone in the city knows. They are homeless and like to use storefronts that won't run them away as shelter in the evening while they beg for money. There is a local 7-11 that is particularly poor people friendly, on a given rainy night there is a guy that is out in front of the one closest to my house looking like he's going to freeze to death.
Go downtown sometime. With the exception of a few tourist cities I've never walked from one side of the downtown area of a city to another without meeting some people who are obviously homeless and living in abject poverty. Since I was twelve when my parents started letting me leave the house on my own I regularly encountered homeless people. I don't live in a particularly bad city either. To me, the idea that you could go your entire life without encountering homelessness or poverty that was obvious, is fantasy. It's not something I can really believe.
For most parents in my area, homeless people provide a service. There is this thing that a lot of parents in my area do where they their kids take to the worst parts of town and they point and say "If you don't do your homework or clean your room right, that's going to be you." You know, a look at the freak show sort of thing. Then they usually follow it up by "these people are losers. Don't give them your money cause they'll just spend it on booze."
Honestly, I have a hard time imagining a life without seeing poverty.
Cantelope on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
To me, never meeting someone you knew was poor is really hard to understand. I meet poor people all the time. In fact, there are several poor people that everyone in the city knows. They are homeless and like to use storefronts that won't run them away as shelter in the evening while they beg for money. There is a local 7-11 that is particularly poor people friendly, on a given rainy night there is a guy that is out in front of the one closest to my house looking like he's going to freeze to death.
Go downtown sometime. With the exception of a few tourist cities I've never walked from one side of the downtown area of a city to another without meeting some people who are obviously homeless and living in abject poverty. Since I was twelve when my parents started letting me leave the house on my own I regularly encountered homeless people. I don't live in a particularly bad city either. To me, the idea that you could go your entire life without encountering homelessness or poverty that was obvious, is fantasy. It's not something I can really believe.
For most parents in my area, homeless people provide a service. There is this thing that a lot of parents in my area do where they their kids take to the worst parts of town and they point and say "If you don't do your homework or clean your room right, that's going to be you." You know, a look at the freak show sort of thing. Then they usually follow it up by "these people are losers. Don't give them your money cause they'll just spend it on booze."
Honestly, I have a hard time imagining a life without seeing poverty.
Again, you don't know them (you probably never speak to them) and don't come to understand them or their problems. Seeing the poor or having a poor person ring you up at the grocery store =/= knowing people who are poor.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
What's the relevance of never having known poor people again?
Also, you've probably known several and it just doesn't come up.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What's the relevance of never having known poor people again?
Also, you've probably known several and it just doesn't come up.
This all started with a statement that in America we hide poverty.
Yes, like I said before that may well be the case, but merely knowing poor people without knowing they are poor does not promote understanding.
Well, in Everywhere we hid poverty. It's hardly just an American thing.
Short answer is unless you've been poor, you can't understand it. That doesn't mean you can't have empathy for people in a bad situation, which I'm sure most people do. There are plenty of articles and research out there on the interwebz to let you know what's going on though.
Of course, we're starting to demonize the poor as well:
What's the relevance of never having known poor people again?
Also, you've probably known several and it just doesn't come up.
This all started with a statement that in America we hide poverty.
Yes, like I said before that may well be the case, but merely knowing poor people without knowing they are poor does not promote understanding.
You don't need to talk to poor people face to face to understand them. Watch the news, tv shows, movies, documentaries, articles or interviews with poor people. This is possible with magazines, newspapers and internet. This very forum is a great way to find out things you never had access to from your social circles, which are far from the poor classes.
What's the relevance of never having known poor people again?
Also, you've probably known several and it just doesn't come up.
This all started with a statement that in America we hide poverty.
Yes, like I said before that may well be the case, but merely knowing poor people without knowing they are poor does not promote understanding.
Read my post slowly, were talking about people who are obviously poor. Were talking about people that when you look at them, you can tell. Besides that, school. If you went to public school it's pretty much inconceivable that you didn't encounter anyone who was obviously poor. It is by no means a normal occurrence for people to have not encountered people that are obviously poor.
Edit: Why do you have to equivocate so much spacekungfuman?
Cantelope on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Also, who the fuck compares a minimum wage wafflehouse waitress to a six-figure banker?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
To me, never meeting someone you knew was poor is really hard to understand. I meet poor people all the time. In fact, there are several poor people that everyone in the city knows. They are homeless and like to use storefronts that won't run them away as shelter in the evening while they beg for money. There is a local 7-11 that is particularly poor people friendly, on a given rainy night there is a guy that is out in front of the one closest to my house looking like he's going to freeze to death.
Go downtown sometime. With the exception of a few tourist cities I've never walked from one side of the downtown area of a city to another without meeting some people who are obviously homeless and living in abject poverty. Since I was twelve when my parents started letting me leave the house on my own I regularly encountered homeless people. I don't live in a particularly bad city either. To me, the idea that you could go your entire life without encountering homelessness or poverty that was obvious, is fantasy. It's not something I can really believe.
For most parents in my area, homeless people provide a service. There is this thing that a lot of parents in my area do where they their kids take to the worst parts of town and they point and say "If you don't do your homework or clean your room right, that's going to be you." You know, a look at the freak show sort of thing. Then they usually follow it up by "these people are losers. Don't give them your money cause they'll just spend it on booze."
Honestly, I have a hard time imagining a life without seeing poverty.
Again, you don't know them (you probably never speak to them) and don't come to understand them or their problems. Seeing the poor or having a poor person ring you up at the grocery store =/= knowing people who are poor.
I've talked to plenty of poor people. It usually comes down to lack of opportunity for them to use the skills they have. Occasionally there is an injury or mental illness that they cannot afford to take care of that plays a role. That's for the ones that talk intelligibly anyways. Plenty of the homeless are severely mentally ill and are incapable of taking care of themselves, these kinds of people have no business being left out on the streets.
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Even if your bonus terms are black and white, that doesn't mean you're going to get it every time. My bonuses are metric based. Sometimes I meet them, sometimes I don't.
If you were confused about the word "bonus", I don't know what to say to you. You can try to pretend it was something else as much as you want, the fact that the group of people we're talking about suddenly had it taken away/reduced is all the evidence you need that it's a standard bonus and never should have been treated as anything else.
Also, who the fuck compares a minimum wage wafflehouse waitress to a six-figure banker?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
30% of 700k, I could be pretty financially independent after the first year.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What's the relevance of never having known poor people again?
Also, you've probably known several and it just doesn't come up.
This all started with a statement that in America we hide poverty.
Yes, like I said before that may well be the case, but merely knowing poor people without knowing they are poor does not promote understanding.
Read my post slowly, were talking about people who are obviously poor. Were talking about people that when you look at them, you can tell. Besides that, school. If you went to public school it's pretty much inconceivable that you didn't encounter anyone who was obviously poor. It is by no means a normal occurrence for people to have not encountered people that are obviously poor.
Edit: Why do you have to equivocate so much spacekungfuman?
All you were talking about is seeing poor people, who by your own admission are dehumanized in a poverty boogeyman. Yes, you see them and know they are poor, but you dont understand them. I also don't think they are representative of what it means to generally be poor in America, especially since a lot of these people have serious issues beyond their poverty.
What's the relevance of never having known poor people again?
Also, you've probably known several and it just doesn't come up.
This all started with a statement that in America we hide poverty.
Yes, like I said before that may well be the case, but merely knowing poor people without knowing they are poor does not promote understanding.
Read my post slowly, were talking about people who are obviously poor. Were talking about people that when you look at them, you can tell. Besides that, school. If you went to public school it's pretty much inconceivable that you didn't encounter anyone who was obviously poor. It is by no means a normal occurrence for people to have not encountered people that are obviously poor.
Edit: Why do you have to equivocate so much spacekungfuman?
All you were talking about is seeing poor people, who by your own admission are dehumanized in a poverty boogeyman. Yes, you see them and know they are poor, but you dont understand them. I also don't think they are representative of what it means to generally be poor in America, especially since a lot of these people have serious issues beyond their poverty.
How do you know those issues didn't lead them into poverty? The mentally ill are pretty screwed when they're already in the poor classes. It doesn't take much the most vulnerable to be homeless. IIRC during Dubya's reign budgets were cut for services relating to the mentally ill forcing many to be "let go" by their facilities where they stayed at, increasing the homeless population very quickly.
There are different types of poor people, as well. They are poor for many reasons and some are better in finances than others.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Even if your bonus terms are black and white, that doesn't mean you're going to get it every time. My bonuses are metric based. Sometimes I meet them, sometimes I don't.
If you were confused about the word "bonus", I don't know what to say to you. You can try to pretend it was something else as much as you want, the fact that the group of people we're talking about suddenly had it taken away/reduced is all the evidence you need that it's a standard bonus and never should have been treated as anything else.
Also, who the fuck compares a minimum wage wafflehouse waitress to a six-figure banker?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
30% of 700k, I could be pretty financially independent after the first year.
Now you sound like the people who say "if I had $60k a year, I'd be set, so I don't understand how you can complain if your salary is cut from $80k to $60k". Sure, you could live a $200k lifestyle on $700k in income a year, but it is not unreasonable for someone to live within their means.
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Also, who the fuck compares a minimum wage wafflehouse waitress to a six-figure banker?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
Which again proves you got fucked in salary negotiations.
The whole point of structuring bonuses into your compensation is so that they can do shit like this. That's it's sole purpose: to fuck you when the company isn't doing well.
And secondly, you can very much do just fine with a 30% drop in compensation if your income is over $500k. Don't fucking kid yourself about this.
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
The point is YOU SHOULD KNOW. If the terms of your employment say $100 000 per year, and then don't mention any bonus, then you should only plan for $100 000 per year. Just because for 5 years, you got a $10 000 bonus, you should not be of the belief that you will receive it again this year. This is no different than any other term of employment. You may have had the same boss for 5 years; doesn't mean your boss won't change. You may have had the same duties for 5 years; doesn't mean those could change. You may have had your Christmas party in the same place for 5 years; doesn't mean it will continue to be held there. If it's not signed for, then you... well, I guess you can expect it, but you shouldn't be fucking surprised if it doesn't come through. How is that not a basic fact of life that every goddamned adult should understand by now?
And btw, no, waiters shouldn't plan their lives around me tipping them. It's only social convention that causes me to tip them. I'm under no contractual obligation to do so. If they've put themselves into a situation where either I tip them or the mob comes break their legs, that's their mistake. This is financial planning we're talking about; you don't PLAN to win the lottery either.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
If you can't be financially independent on $140k a year, you have problems far beyond anything I can imagine.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
If you can't be financially independent on $140k a year, you have problems far beyond anything I can imagine.
Most people don't have fixed wants, regardless of income. When you make $700k, you probably don't want to live in a a house you could afford on $150k, for example. If you are happy with the smaller house and cheaper lifestyle, you probably would not take the higher paying (and typically higher hours) job in the first place.
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Also, who the fuck compares a minimum wage wafflehouse waitress to a six-figure banker?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
It's difficult to feel sympathy for someone who helps a company fuck over tons of people, watches as their company does anything to increase their bottom line in order to give their executive board bigger bonuses and their shareholders bigger dividends/equity, and then is shocked when the company cuts their bonuses.
Well, fucking duh that was coming. Serves you fucking right. But hey, just pull yourself up by your bootstraps. I hear McDonald's is hiring; maybe try them.
Thanatos on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Also, who the fuck compares a minimum wage wafflehouse waitress to a six-figure banker?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
It's difficult to feel sympathy for someone who helps a company fuck over tons of people, watches as their company does anything to increase their bottom line in order to give their executive board bigger bonuses and their shareholders bigger dividends/equity, and then is shocked when the company cuts their bonuses.
Well, fucking duh that was coming. Serves you fucking right.
The bonus dependent people we are talking about are mostly at banks though, not at the operating companies you are talking about.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
SKFM, the whole never knowing poor people is a problem for this reason, among others: it shows how there is a threshold of wealth in which you are disconnected from an entire class of people, which, if you've been paying attention to,the news for the last decade, has only been growing.
To say that you don't find it unusual is particularly eyebrow raising. Living in a metropolitan area, it's hard not to meet people from different backgrounds. I just can't fathom how you wouldn't have met and gotten to know one person who is living below or near the poverty line.
The bonus dependent people we are talking about are mostly at banks though, not at the operating companies you are talking about.
That doesn't particularly make me more sympathetic towards them, given that they work at institutions that promote sensible financial planning. (Or if they're lawyers, accountants, etc,)
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Also, who the fuck compares a minimum wage wafflehouse waitress to a six-figure banker?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
It's difficult to feel sympathy for someone who helps a company fuck over tons of people, watches as their company does anything to increase their bottom line in order to give their executive board bigger bonuses and their shareholders bigger dividends/equity, and then is shocked when the company cuts their bonuses.
Well, fucking duh that was coming. Serves you fucking right. But hey, just pull yourself up by your bootstraps. I hear McDonald's is hiring; maybe try them.
The bonus dependent people we are talking about are mostly at banks though, not at the operating companies you are talking about.
Oh, banks? Banks are awesome, philanthropic institutions that are a boon to our society... Oh, no, wait, they're a bunch of evil fucks who do everything they can to completely fuck over poor people in order to turn a profit. It's difficult not to paint a bank as a fucking James Bond villain; it's in their fucking nature. So, you know, fuck 'em. They're getting what they have coming. I mean, it's not the bank CEO's fault that he's making more money than them; he worked hard for his money. They just need to work hard, and they could be making that much, too.
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
If you can't be financially independent on $140k a year, you have problems far beyond anything I can imagine.
Most people don't have fixed wants, regardless of income. When you make $700k, you probably don't want to live in a a house you could afford on $150k, for example. If you are happy with the smaller house and cheaper lifestyle, you probably would not take the higher paying (and typically higher hours) job in the first place.
When I read this post my sympathy dropped into some sort of a negative integer rating from its already low rating. WANTS, mother fucking wants. Meanwhile, many people go with insufficient needs being met like healthcare, food, shelter, etc while taxing and regulating the rich, accumulated wealth and income alike, affecting their fucking wants is somehow taboo. THEIR FUCKING WANTS.
Fuck it, engage in class warfare, the rich already are out of unintentional ignorance due to stratification warping their view so greatly they can't figure out the difference between desperate need and unrestrained greed. Find a way to side with the abject and working poor quick SKFM, I hope that is what you are doing in this thread, because otherwise it sounds like you are making an argument for it being a whole lot more than just 1% who should get reigned in. Fucking crazy.
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
If you can't be financially independent on $140k a year, you have problems far beyond anything I can imagine.
Most people don't have fixed wants, regardless of income. When you make $700k, you probably don't want to live in a a house you could afford on $150k, for example. If you are happy with the smaller house and cheaper lifestyle, you probably would not take the higher paying (and typically higher hours) job in the first place.
You live off of the $140k. And by that, anything that is a necessity comes from that $140k. The $300k is for things like buying a new car outright (or a whole fleet of new cars!), remodeling your nice fancy house that you can afford with $140k, buying new and fancy electronic equipment, or putting away for the time when you may not get your insanely high bonus that in no way shape or form you should count on.
When people making this much money can't understand that having a paycut at this level in no way is the same as the plight of poor people and should not be handled as such, yes, I do believe that no sympathy should come to them. They expect poor people to suck it up when they get laid off because the company just didn't make enough this year, or when banks decide to start adding on fees that they just can't afford, or when their hours start getting cut so the company can stop offering them insurance, when their car breaks down so they have to spend all of their savings on that instead of going to school to get out of their situation. So why the hell would poor people not want to hear their complaining when they still make enough money to have a place to live, be mobile, have a family, buy healthy food, have a future beyond in 5 minutes, and possibly go on vacation?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
If you can't be financially independent on $140k a year, you have problems far beyond anything I can imagine.
Most people don't have fixed wants, regardless of income. When you make $700k, you probably don't want to live in a a house you could afford on $150k, for example. If you are happy with the smaller house and cheaper lifestyle, you probably would not take the higher paying (and typically higher hours) job in the first place.
When I read this post my sympathy dropped into some sort of a negative integer rating from its already low rating. WANTS, mother fucking wants. Meanwhile, many people go with insufficient needs being met like healthcare, food, shelter, etc while taxing and regulating the rich, accumulated wealth and income alike, affecting their fucking wants is somehow taboo. THEIR FUCKING WANTS.
Fuck it, engage in class warfare, the rich already are out of unintentional ignorance due to stratification warping their view so greatly they can't figure out the difference between desperate need and unrestrained greed. Find a way to side with the abject and working poor quick SKFM, I hope that is what you are doing in this thread, because otherwise it sounds like you are making an argument for it being a whole lot more than just 1% who should get reigned in. Fucking crazy.
I look forward to the day when my investment in guillotine futures pays off.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
But how can he side with people he doesn't know or understand?
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Even if your bonus terms are black and white, that doesn't mean you're going to get it every time. My bonuses are metric based. Sometimes I meet them, sometimes I don't.
If you were confused about the word "bonus", I don't know what to say to you. You can try to pretend it was something else as much as you want, the fact that the group of people we're talking about suddenly had it taken away/reduced is all the evidence you need that it's a standard bonus and never should have been treated as anything else.
Also, who the fuck compares a minimum wage wafflehouse waitress to a six-figure banker?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
30% of 700k, I could be pretty financially independent after the first year.
Now you sound like the people who say "if I had $60k a year, I'd be set, so I don't understand how you can complain if your salary is cut from $80k to $60k". Sure, you could live a $200k lifestyle on $700k in income a year, but it is not unreasonable for someone to live within their means.
The weirdest thing about this sympathy conservatives have for people taking a drop in their payment is that it evaporates the moment someone actually loses their job. Then it's always along the lines of "suck it up and take the hit man" and "stop complaining and get a new job".
It's another example of conservatives refusing to admit what it's all actually about. Because it's not about living-expenses or "expected pay" or whatever.
What it's about is that they believe that they deserve that money. They deserve their lifestyle. No one is going "ooh yes I actually only deserve 60k but my company gives me 200k and I sorta got used to that". Every statement about how their lifestyle is this or that it's in their contract or whatever needs to be prefaced with the admission that they believe that they deserve all that money.
It's like someone being fired and saying that since they were expecting all that money that it should still be given to them. It's bizarre that they get away with it.
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
If you can't be financially independent on $140k a year, you have problems far beyond anything I can imagine.
Most people don't have fixed wants, regardless of income. When you make $700k, you probably don't want to live in a a house you could afford on $150k, for example. If you are happy with the smaller house and cheaper lifestyle, you probably would not take the higher paying (and typically higher hours) job in the first place.
When I read this post my sympathy dropped into some sort of a negative integer rating from its already low rating. WANTS, mother fucking wants. Meanwhile, many people go with insufficient needs being met like healthcare, food, shelter, etc while taxing and regulating the rich, accumulated wealth and income alike, affecting their fucking wants is somehow taboo. THEIR FUCKING WANTS.
Fuck it, engage in class warfare, the rich already are out of unintentional ignorance due to stratification warping their view so greatly they can't figure out the difference between desperate need and unrestrained greed. Find a way to side with the abject and working poor quick SKFM, I hope that is what you are doing in this thread, because otherwise it sounds like you are making an argument for it being a whole lot more than just 1% who should get reigned in. Fucking crazy.
I look forward to the day when my investment in guillotine futures pays off.
french goods will probably end up having a market shock when the euro crashes
I tend to sympathize with people who make decisions like "I can eat or pay the heating bill" over "Oh no, I will no longer be able to spend 17 fucking grand on my dog."
Also, if you are paying someone else to walk your dog and you are not an invalid, you are owning a dog wrong.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
like that time 2 years or so ago when a bunch of bankers admitted that the bonuses were too high but that they still had to accept those bonuses because it was in their contract. Like they felt bad about taking these hundreds of thousands of dollars but they're hands were tied.
I think I remember hearing that those bonuses were taxed at 70%
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
You know, if I've learned anything from this current discussion, it's that bankers/accountants need to renegotiate their pay system cause it doesn't make any fucking sense.
Because
bo·nus /ˈboʊnəs/ noun, plural -nus·es.
1.something given or paid over and above what is due.
2.a sum of money granted or given to an employee, a returned soldier, etc., in addition to regular pay, usually in appreciation for work done, length of service, accumulated favors, etc.
3.something free, as an extra dividend, given by a corporation to a purchaser of its securities.
4.a premium paid for a loan, contract, etc.
5.something extra or additional given freely: Every purchaser of a pound of coffee received a box of cookies as a bonus.
Houn, replacing the word "bonus" with "tip" may help you understand that base pay as you know it isn't the way compensation works across the board.
Not really, because it's not a tip
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Even if your bonus terms are black and white, that doesn't mean you're going to get it every time. My bonuses are metric based. Sometimes I meet them, sometimes I don't.
If you were confused about the word "bonus", I don't know what to say to you. You can try to pretend it was something else as much as you want, the fact that the group of people we're talking about suddenly had it taken away/reduced is all the evidence you need that it's a standard bonus and never should have been treated as anything else.
Also, who the fuck compares a minimum wage wafflehouse waitress to a six-figure banker?
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
30% of 700k, I could be pretty financially independent after the first year.
Now you sound like the people who say "if I had $60k a year, I'd be set, so I don't understand how you can complain if your salary is cut from $80k to $60k". Sure, you could live a $200k lifestyle on $700k in income a year, but it is not unreasonable for someone to live within their means.
The weirdest thing about this sympathy conservatives have for people taking a drop in their payment is that it evaporates the moment someone actually loses their job. Then it's always along the lines of "suck it up and take the hit man" and "stop complaining and get a new job".
It's another example of conservatives refusing to admit what it's all actually about. Because it's not about living-expenses or "expected pay" or whatever.
What it's about is that they believe that they deserve that money. They deserve their lifestyle. No one is going "ooh yes I actually only deserve 60k but my company gives me 200k and I sorta got used to that". Every statement about how their lifestyle is this or that it's in their contract or whatever needs to be prefaced with the admission that they believe that they deserve all that money.
It's like someone being fired and saying that since they were expecting all that money that it should still be given to them. It's bizarre that they get away with it.
They only get away with it because they have the power and have a community that encourages that behavior.
SKFM, the whole never knowing poor people is a problem for this reason, among others: it shows how there is a threshold of wealth in which you are disconnected from an entire class of people, which, if you've been paying attention to,the news for the last decade, has only been growing.
To say that you don't find it unusual is particularly eyebrow raising. Living in a metropolitan area, it's hard not to meet people from different backgrounds. I just can't fathom how you wouldn't have met and gotten to know one person who is living below or near the poverty line.
I can't remember the last time I had a meaningful interaction with someone who wasn't a member of the university I attend, or didn't work with my wife. If you put in an above average work week, like 50 or 60 hours regularly, it is easy to end up hanging out exclusively with people from work. You end up not going out much because you're hosed for time, and if you don't get out, well you don't see shit that is going on. The kinds of jobs that tend to pay like that encourage a sort of tunnel vision.
Doesn't mean you don't see it on TV or on the way to work, but you also don't really know those folks, as someone pointed out earlier.
edit: I guess my point was, I'm pretty sure this is actually not surprising. People tend to predominantly hang out with people like themselves. Birds of a feather and all that.
seabass on
Run you pigeons, it's Robert Frost!
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
But you're still meeting people from different backgrounds in that setting. Not everyone who attends college is from a gated community without poor people.
Posts
I did not say I never met a poor person. I said I never really knew anyone who was poor, or if I did, I had no idea they were poor. You don't have meaningful interactions with the cashier at the grocery store, and you certainly do not gain exposure to a different lifestyle or point of view from it. Of people I really knew, to my knowledge no one was really struggling, and "poor" meant "parents did not buy them a car" or "they can't afford to go out to eat with their group of friends." Maybe I knew people on foodstamps or some other form of government assistance, but if I did, it was not apparent, and not something people talked about. This is what I mean when I say I would have had to make an effort to get to know poor people. I lived in a homogenous town in a county full of homogenous towns, went to a college that was also very homogenous, and then went to a very expensive elite law school. Now, I mostly know other lawyers and the people who can afford to live in my town and community. If there were people who were really poor at any of those stages I just did not see it, because they did not make it obvious, and if someone doesn't talk about being poor, (1) you have no way to know that they are poor and (2) you have no way to actually get exposure to the issues they face because they are poor. I don't think this is some crazy, sheltered, out of touch upbringing and world view. It's just a byproduct of living in areas that are not accessible to the poor and people not wanting to share their money troubles openly. I guess my question is how exactly would someone who is not poor and does not live near poor people get exposure to the problems of the poor without making a deliberate effort?
I think there is a lot that contributes to these feelings. When I was a kid, anytime we drove through a "bad area" my parents would relock the car doors, and that really reinforced a perception of danger. Also, when you live in a low crime area, the town next door which is low crime but has some crime sounds dangerous by comparison. So I (and my friends and peers) grew up not going to the bad areas at night, and generally avoiding them unless there was a specific reason to go. It becomes self reinforcing. Of course, the "bad" areas in Northern NJ also happened to be the only places that weren't 90%+ white, which reinforces all kinds of other stereotypes, but that's a whole different issue.
I know that you understand there is a difference between not poor and crazy rich (my town growing up was definitely not crazy rich). I went to public school, and my kids will too (albeit in a nationally ranked school system). But my town growing up was pretty firmly well off (there wasn't even anywhere you could rent a house and all but one condo complex were seniors only), so it would have been really hard for poor people to live there. Is this really so surprising?
Go downtown sometime. With the exception of a few tourist cities I've never walked from one side of the downtown area of a city to another without meeting some people who are obviously homeless and living in abject poverty. Since I was twelve when my parents started letting me leave the house on my own I regularly encountered homeless people. I don't live in a particularly bad city either. To me, the idea that you could go your entire life without encountering homelessness or poverty that was obvious, is fantasy. It's not something I can really believe.
For most parents in my area, homeless people provide a service. There is this thing that a lot of parents in my area do where they their kids take to the worst parts of town and they point and say "If you don't do your homework or clean your room right, that's going to be you." You know, a look at the freak show sort of thing. Then they usually follow it up by "these people are losers. Don't give them your money cause they'll just spend it on booze."
Honestly, I have a hard time imagining a life without seeing poverty.
Again, you don't know them (you probably never speak to them) and don't come to understand them or their problems. Seeing the poor or having a poor person ring you up at the grocery store =/= knowing people who are poor.
Also, you've probably known several and it just doesn't come up.
This all started with a statement that in America we hide poverty.
Yes, like I said before that may well be the case, but merely knowing poor people without knowing they are poor does not promote understanding.
Well, in Everywhere we hid poverty. It's hardly just an American thing.
Short answer is unless you've been poor, you can't understand it. That doesn't mean you can't have empathy for people in a bad situation, which I'm sure most people do. There are plenty of articles and research out there on the interwebz to let you know what's going on though.
Of course, we're starting to demonize the poor as well:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/05/437446/minnesota-rep-food-stamps-animals/
You don't need to talk to poor people face to face to understand them. Watch the news, tv shows, movies, documentaries, articles or interviews with poor people. This is possible with magazines, newspapers and internet. This very forum is a great way to find out things you never had access to from your social circles, which are far from the poor classes.
Read my post slowly, were talking about people who are obviously poor. Were talking about people that when you look at them, you can tell. Besides that, school. If you went to public school it's pretty much inconceivable that you didn't encounter anyone who was obviously poor. It is by no means a normal occurrence for people to have not encountered people that are obviously poor.
Edit: Why do you have to equivocate so much spacekungfuman?
Stop. It's a part of your compensation package. There exist people out there for whom "bonus" means "a nice little something extra" like "gratuity" means "a freely given gift for exemplary service". It may be a foreign concept to you, but some firms will give a 30-40% bonus and actually have the "bonus" compensation guidelines in black and white.
Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.
I've talked to plenty of poor people. It usually comes down to lack of opportunity for them to use the skills they have. Occasionally there is an injury or mental illness that they cannot afford to take care of that plays a role. That's for the ones that talk intelligibly anyways. Plenty of the homeless are severely mentally ill and are incapable of taking care of themselves, these kinds of people have no business being left out on the streets.
Even if your bonus terms are black and white, that doesn't mean you're going to get it every time. My bonuses are metric based. Sometimes I meet them, sometimes I don't.
If you were confused about the word "bonus", I don't know what to say to you. You can try to pretend it was something else as much as you want, the fact that the group of people we're talking about suddenly had it taken away/reduced is all the evidence you need that it's a standard bonus and never should have been treated as anything else.
30% of 700k, I could be pretty financially independent after the first year.
All you were talking about is seeing poor people, who by your own admission are dehumanized in a poverty boogeyman. Yes, you see them and know they are poor, but you dont understand them. I also don't think they are representative of what it means to generally be poor in America, especially since a lot of these people have serious issues beyond their poverty.
How do you know those issues didn't lead them into poverty? The mentally ill are pretty screwed when they're already in the poor classes. It doesn't take much the most vulnerable to be homeless. IIRC during Dubya's reign budgets were cut for services relating to the mentally ill forcing many to be "let go" by their facilities where they stayed at, increasing the homeless population very quickly.
There are different types of poor people, as well. They are poor for many reasons and some are better in finances than others.
Now you sound like the people who say "if I had $60k a year, I'd be set, so I don't understand how you can complain if your salary is cut from $80k to $60k". Sure, you could live a $200k lifestyle on $700k in income a year, but it is not unreasonable for someone to live within their means.
Which again proves you got fucked in salary negotiations.
The whole point of structuring bonuses into your compensation is so that they can do shit like this. That's it's sole purpose: to fuck you when the company isn't doing well.
And secondly, you can very much do just fine with a 30% drop in compensation if your income is over $500k. Don't fucking kid yourself about this.
The point is YOU SHOULD KNOW. If the terms of your employment say $100 000 per year, and then don't mention any bonus, then you should only plan for $100 000 per year. Just because for 5 years, you got a $10 000 bonus, you should not be of the belief that you will receive it again this year. This is no different than any other term of employment. You may have had the same boss for 5 years; doesn't mean your boss won't change. You may have had the same duties for 5 years; doesn't mean those could change. You may have had your Christmas party in the same place for 5 years; doesn't mean it will continue to be held there. If it's not signed for, then you... well, I guess you can expect it, but you shouldn't be fucking surprised if it doesn't come through. How is that not a basic fact of life that every goddamned adult should understand by now?
And btw, no, waiters shouldn't plan their lives around me tipping them. It's only social convention that causes me to tip them. I'm under no contractual obligation to do so. If they've put themselves into a situation where either I tip them or the mob comes break their legs, that's their mistake. This is financial planning we're talking about; you don't PLAN to win the lottery either.
If you can't be financially independent on $140k a year, you have problems far beyond anything I can imagine.
Most people don't have fixed wants, regardless of income. When you make $700k, you probably don't want to live in a a house you could afford on $150k, for example. If you are happy with the smaller house and cheaper lifestyle, you probably would not take the higher paying (and typically higher hours) job in the first place.
Well, fucking duh that was coming. Serves you fucking right. But hey, just pull yourself up by your bootstraps. I hear McDonald's is hiring; maybe try them.
The bonus dependent people we are talking about are mostly at banks though, not at the operating companies you are talking about.
To say that you don't find it unusual is particularly eyebrow raising. Living in a metropolitan area, it's hard not to meet people from different backgrounds. I just can't fathom how you wouldn't have met and gotten to know one person who is living below or near the poverty line.
That doesn't particularly make me more sympathetic towards them, given that they work at institutions that promote sensible financial planning. (Or if they're lawyers, accountants, etc,)
When I read this post my sympathy dropped into some sort of a negative integer rating from its already low rating. WANTS, mother fucking wants. Meanwhile, many people go with insufficient needs being met like healthcare, food, shelter, etc while taxing and regulating the rich, accumulated wealth and income alike, affecting their fucking wants is somehow taboo. THEIR FUCKING WANTS.
Fuck it, engage in class warfare, the rich already are out of unintentional ignorance due to stratification warping their view so greatly they can't figure out the difference between desperate need and unrestrained greed. Find a way to side with the abject and working poor quick SKFM, I hope that is what you are doing in this thread, because otherwise it sounds like you are making an argument for it being a whole lot more than just 1% who should get reigned in. Fucking crazy.
You live off of the $140k. And by that, anything that is a necessity comes from that $140k. The $300k is for things like buying a new car outright (or a whole fleet of new cars!), remodeling your nice fancy house that you can afford with $140k, buying new and fancy electronic equipment, or putting away for the time when you may not get your insanely high bonus that in no way shape or form you should count on.
When people making this much money can't understand that having a paycut at this level in no way is the same as the plight of poor people and should not be handled as such, yes, I do believe that no sympathy should come to them. They expect poor people to suck it up when they get laid off because the company just didn't make enough this year, or when banks decide to start adding on fees that they just can't afford, or when their hours start getting cut so the company can stop offering them insurance, when their car breaks down so they have to spend all of their savings on that instead of going to school to get out of their situation. So why the hell would poor people not want to hear their complaining when they still make enough money to have a place to live, be mobile, have a family, buy healthy food, have a future beyond in 5 minutes, and possibly go on vacation?
The weirdest thing about this sympathy conservatives have for people taking a drop in their payment is that it evaporates the moment someone actually loses their job. Then it's always along the lines of "suck it up and take the hit man" and "stop complaining and get a new job".
It's another example of conservatives refusing to admit what it's all actually about. Because it's not about living-expenses or "expected pay" or whatever.
What it's about is that they believe that they deserve that money. They deserve their lifestyle. No one is going "ooh yes I actually only deserve 60k but my company gives me 200k and I sorta got used to that". Every statement about how their lifestyle is this or that it's in their contract or whatever needs to be prefaced with the admission that they believe that they deserve all that money.
It's like someone being fired and saying that since they were expecting all that money that it should still be given to them. It's bizarre that they get away with it.
invest in bullets
Also, if you are paying someone else to walk your dog and you are not an invalid, you are owning a dog wrong.
Because
No longer seems to apply, and I find that silly.
They only get away with it because they have the power and have a community that encourages that behavior.
I can't remember the last time I had a meaningful interaction with someone who wasn't a member of the university I attend, or didn't work with my wife. If you put in an above average work week, like 50 or 60 hours regularly, it is easy to end up hanging out exclusively with people from work. You end up not going out much because you're hosed for time, and if you don't get out, well you don't see shit that is going on. The kinds of jobs that tend to pay like that encourage a sort of tunnel vision.
Doesn't mean you don't see it on TV or on the way to work, but you also don't really know those folks, as someone pointed out earlier.
edit: I guess my point was, I'm pretty sure this is actually not surprising. People tend to predominantly hang out with people like themselves. Birds of a feather and all that.