I mean you need height as well. And everyone knows how much they have to overcharge at those stores to justify the cost of the rent. A cinema would need to take over multiple locations, have sound proofing, etc.
I'm sorry, but there's no way the economics work out. They would need to charge insane amounts and/or have nearly full occupancy at all times.
The destruction of the middle class directly contributed. The k shaped economy led to two types of products: cheap as hell and luxury. Value evaporated.
It's so hard to buy so many things now because it's an absolute piece of shit or premium to the point of having useless extra features and high pricing.
No companies pursue value which is where all the engineering came into play. It used to make sense that the best product was a balance of price and longevity. Now it's just a race to the bottom. No one expects anything to last anymore, but they can't afford anything better anyway.
The best place to see this is very related to your example with Boeing. Airlines are clearing out coach seats for more first class. Flights are full but they can't raise prices anymore because the poors are too squeezed already. So they'll pursue profit in the only place that they can, which is luxury pricing, which I'm guessing is going to go even higher despite more supply.
I'll echo what many people have said here - for me it comes down to environment. My brain still craves the novelty of "something else that's more fun".
When I'm on meds, I have to create an environment that is also curated. I tried using them in the office and it's a real problem. In the context of the office there are so many additional things that it's difficult to focus and I end up going into deeper rabbit holes than off meds.
Adderall helps me stay in a task, but doesn't do much to help get me into the right task.
Got it, apologies on the typo and subsequent misunderstanding.
I think we're both after the same thing - I guess I'm just trying to get the safety net before attacking the "top" of what is reasonable.
And I'm kind of OK with a nearly infinite top... As long as the tax rate makes sense. If you're at a 95% tax rate (and loopholes aren't rampant... Lot of ifs here) then go nuts. You'll be supplying a good life for many people, by force, as a result of good taxes and public policy.
Yes, the disparity is the problem. But it needs to actually be spread out. Things like universal health care do that inherently if they properly raise taxes on the rich.
Redistributing wealth from the top 0.1% to the top 1% doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.
And yes, paying for it will come from taxing the rich. None of that has to do with capitalism exclusively.
I feel like we're after the same thing but you're more interested in attacking my idea than building something together or proposing something different. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but your questions are quite loaded and you didn't offer anything of substance yourself. The only thing you didn't deflect back to me was saying "the disparity is the problem", and that is precisely the point I was making. I'm specifically pointing out that it's about the full disparity.
I think concern is placed on the wrong end, at least in terms of criticality.
I am less concerned about "maximums" right now. I know that's going to set off all kinds of alarm bells right now, but bear with me.
The two are intertwined for sure, but I'm mostly concerned with "minimums". If we had a society with Universal Basic Income, housing and Healthcare for everyone, and people had a safety net to pursue their passions, then I'm far less concerned about if someone has a billion dollars.
Again, they are both part of the same problem, but it's the focus. If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn't solve anything.
So yeah if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away.
From there we can continue the debate, but I'm more concerned about taking care of everyone who is closer to the floor then worrying about the ceiling. I think there are capitalist ways that continue to reward actual breakthroughs and risks rather than the exploitation we have now.
I mean if you're talking about this version of capitalism, sure. But capitalism is more than one thing. These monolithic ideas that you are either capitalist or socialist or something else really downgrades the debate.
I have no love for what we have today. But there's a version of capitalism I could live with - it's just a far cry from what we have.
These overly simplistic memes don't do any favors, in my opinion. Saying if you believe in capitalism you are right wing is more alienating than galvanizing, and it reduces so many concepts down to such basic ones that there's no real meaning left.
This definitely won't be popular, hope you stick with me to the end, but real estate is collateral that holds its value quite well most of the time, and is insured by the homeowner.
Stocks don't have that. Companies with large valuations can liquidate overnight.
Does that mean it's all a bad idea? No, but it just is different than the frame provided. They are different assets.
Taxing rich people in new ways can be a good thing. Taxing unrealized gains gets complicated, but can be done. But also comparing it to property tax is problematic for a lot of reasons. There are much better arguments, so I think we should stick with those. This one has too many easy attack angles with valid points, even if the main point of "rich people get out of taxes more than normies" is completely true.
I got a Google TV box and disconnected my Samsung TV from the internet. A week later I got an email about how connecting them helps me because it sends the data and my preferences back to Samsung.
... It sends thousands of information pings each day.
I think that's all fair. But individual reps might care. I think that's where you can make progress. Those midterms are coming in hot for all those reps.
The Republican party is Trump at the moment, and those reps are looking at getting their asses kicked out of a job.
Then I would try to communicate that better. Your 3 sentences in the original end with they don't care, it doesn't matter, and that's the problem with the protests. It comes across completely defeatist.
Love this. I think people expect to work through things with the same understanding that they look back on them with.
We have actually mobilized a record number of people. If we're having the argument about where to point them, I think people are missing the point that it's the right problem to have.
I mean you need height as well. And everyone knows how much they have to overcharge at those stores to justify the cost of the rent. A cinema would need to take over multiple locations, have sound proofing, etc.
I'm sorry, but there's no way the economics work out. They would need to charge insane amounts and/or have nearly full occupancy at all times.
Surprised no one is getting the obvious piece here... Airports are severely space limited. Movie theaters are massive.
If the landlord installed doors and door frames that could handle that weight, then any amount would likely be worth paying.
In my experience, contractor grade stuff would have crumbled under the weight of a large sack of potatoes.
I honestly think speed has a lot to do with it. With the rapid switch and ability to just ping the next thing, it removes all reflection time.
Even flipping through channels required enough to evaluate what you were jumping into the middle of.
Algorithms make it so the videos are incentivize to onboard you as fast as possible and they start when you flip.
The destruction of the middle class directly contributed. The k shaped economy led to two types of products: cheap as hell and luxury. Value evaporated.
It's so hard to buy so many things now because it's an absolute piece of shit or premium to the point of having useless extra features and high pricing.
No companies pursue value which is where all the engineering came into play. It used to make sense that the best product was a balance of price and longevity. Now it's just a race to the bottom. No one expects anything to last anymore, but they can't afford anything better anyway.
The best place to see this is very related to your example with Boeing. Airlines are clearing out coach seats for more first class. Flights are full but they can't raise prices anymore because the poors are too squeezed already. So they'll pursue profit in the only place that they can, which is luxury pricing, which I'm guessing is going to go even higher despite more supply.
I'll echo what many people have said here - for me it comes down to environment. My brain still craves the novelty of "something else that's more fun".
When I'm on meds, I have to create an environment that is also curated. I tried using them in the office and it's a real problem. In the context of the office there are so many additional things that it's difficult to focus and I end up going into deeper rabbit holes than off meds.
Adderall helps me stay in a task, but doesn't do much to help get me into the right task.
Got it, apologies on the typo and subsequent misunderstanding.
I think we're both after the same thing - I guess I'm just trying to get the safety net before attacking the "top" of what is reasonable.
And I'm kind of OK with a nearly infinite top... As long as the tax rate makes sense. If you're at a 95% tax rate (and loopholes aren't rampant... Lot of ifs here) then go nuts. You'll be supplying a good life for many people, by force, as a result of good taxes and public policy.
Yes, the disparity is the problem. But it needs to actually be spread out. Things like universal health care do that inherently if they properly raise taxes on the rich.
Redistributing wealth from the top 0.1% to the top 1% doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.
And yes, paying for it will come from taxing the rich. None of that has to do with capitalism exclusively.
I feel like we're after the same thing but you're more interested in attacking my idea than building something together or proposing something different. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but your questions are quite loaded and you didn't offer anything of substance yourself. The only thing you didn't deflect back to me was saying "the disparity is the problem", and that is precisely the point I was making. I'm specifically pointing out that it's about the full disparity.
I think concern is placed on the wrong end, at least in terms of criticality.
I am less concerned about "maximums" right now. I know that's going to set off all kinds of alarm bells right now, but bear with me.
The two are intertwined for sure, but I'm mostly concerned with "minimums". If we had a society with Universal Basic Income, housing and Healthcare for everyone, and people had a safety net to pursue their passions, then I'm far less concerned about if someone has a billion dollars.
Again, they are both part of the same problem, but it's the focus. If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn't solve anything.
So yeah if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away.
From there we can continue the debate, but I'm more concerned about taking care of everyone who is closer to the floor then worrying about the ceiling. I think there are capitalist ways that continue to reward actual breakthroughs and risks rather than the exploitation we have now.
It doesn't even seem current proof lol
I mean if you're talking about this version of capitalism, sure. But capitalism is more than one thing. These monolithic ideas that you are either capitalist or socialist or something else really downgrades the debate.
I have no love for what we have today. But there's a version of capitalism I could live with - it's just a far cry from what we have.
These overly simplistic memes don't do any favors, in my opinion. Saying if you believe in capitalism you are right wing is more alienating than galvanizing, and it reduces so many concepts down to such basic ones that there's no real meaning left.
I assume this is a 1985 reference. I see you.
If you didn't have access how do you have an offline copy?
This definitely won't be popular, hope you stick with me to the end, but real estate is collateral that holds its value quite well most of the time, and is insured by the homeowner.
Stocks don't have that. Companies with large valuations can liquidate overnight.
Does that mean it's all a bad idea? No, but it just is different than the frame provided. They are different assets.
Taxing rich people in new ways can be a good thing. Taxing unrealized gains gets complicated, but can be done. But also comparing it to property tax is problematic for a lot of reasons. There are much better arguments, so I think we should stick with those. This one has too many easy attack angles with valid points, even if the main point of "rich people get out of taxes more than normies" is completely true.
I got a Google TV box and disconnected my Samsung TV from the internet. A week later I got an email about how connecting them helps me because it sends the data and my preferences back to Samsung.
... It sends thousands of information pings each day.
... So you do it explicitly to try and make others not like something? That seems like a less than desirable trait as a human.
I think that's all fair. But individual reps might care. I think that's where you can make progress. Those midterms are coming in hot for all those reps.
The Republican party is Trump at the moment, and those reps are looking at getting their asses kicked out of a job.
Then I would try to communicate that better. Your 3 sentences in the original end with they don't care, it doesn't matter, and that's the problem with the protests. It comes across completely defeatist.
So I guess we already lost and should just accept things no matter how bad they get
Love this. I think people expect to work through things with the same understanding that they look back on them with.
We have actually mobilized a record number of people. If we're having the argument about where to point them, I think people are missing the point that it's the right problem to have.