Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kedly]

I don't have kids yet, but raising a family is very much what I want in my future. That being said, love will be the key factor for choosing my partner, not what they will be adding to my childrens genes

[MaximumZero]

There are two words to describe why I don't like Eugenics: Stephen Hawking.

Without him, space would look much different.

[scriver]

I'd be interested in knowing how many of the people saying that people should only buy the minimum to survive etc actually support themselves with full time jobs

I case you mean me, I certainly haven't said you should "only buy the minimum to survive".

[Frumple]

I would say that you can spend your income however you like, up to a point. The average income, as far as I'm aware, is around 50k a year. Very few people are going to be perfect and donate everything they possibly can, but if you make more than 50k or so, that income should be going either to absolute essentials like healthcare if you're unfortunate enough to be sick without insurance, or else to charity.

You want median, not average, if you're trying to measure income, and you're only really dealing with the US, there -- world median is much, much lower. Average gets thrown off by the notable outliers (good ol' 1% and the lil' bit close to it). Median is around (generally a bit less, and varying by state) 50k household income in the US, going by wikipedia's numbers; it's notable that it means that half the country's households makes less.. Individual median is more like 30k, which, again, means that half the actual population is making less. The distribution of those making more... isn't even, of course.

You were fairly close, though! Not nearly as bad as that arsewipe politician down in my state that was freaking stupid enough to state publicly he thought the average household income was 250k. This is Florida, where the median is more like 44k and a pretty huge swath of the population is at or near poverty, especially in the rural areas. That was a negative example of the wealthy for yeh, bleh. They seem pretty disconnected as a whole, really. Wouldn't mind making them live a year as a hobo every half decade or so. Then maybe forced charity labor for a half year. Something like that. It's vague frothing rage at what their general fuckups have done to my people speaking there, but still

[MaximumZero]

I made $8k last year! Woo!

Edit: And this year so far, I've made about $5600.

[ECrownofFire]

and how many people advocating eugenics have kids...

I don't :V

Totally not awkward asexual high-five!



Anyway... the wealthy are not all bad, m'kay? There are assholes at every income level. The rich assholes are just more well known because they have the money to make themselves known. There are hard workers at every income level. Some people inherit everything and are lazy. Some are the hardest workers you will ever meet and were unfortunate enough to born in the middle of impoverished Africa. Saying that there are disproportionately more assholes at the upper income levels is only the result of a vocal minority. I've met plenty of assholes that happened to be poor to know that.

[Hanslanda]

I made $8k last year! Woo!

Edit: And this year so far, I've made about $5600.

*Poverty Brofist*

If my income has been steady, I've made about $4000.

[ChairmanPoo]

Gross or net?

I ake about...13000€ gross a year. Plus 250-340 for each night shift I do, again, gross earnings.

[Hanslanda]

Gross. I don't really... I don't really make anything net. It all goes somewhere.

[LordBucket]

How do you view the wealthy?

Not sure how productive this conversation islikely to be, but in general I side with the rich on this topic. The middle class is stupid and plagued by emotional issues regarding money.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/21-ways-rich-people-think-differently.html

If you're one of the brainwashed, worthless, middle class people the article talks about,
you might have a hard time getting through. Because MAN does it condescend.

Here you go. I skimmed through the article and I don't see anything condescending in there at all. What in there is offensive? There merest fact that it speaks of "rich people" and "average people" and "the middle class?"

Get over it.

If you can't even read about these things without getting angry about it, how can you possibly expect to improve your status in life?

A lot of people are angry at "the rich." A lot of people believe that rich people are evil, or that money is evil, or that in some way money and people who have it are morally bankrupt, or...something. If you really believe that...do you see how that provides an emotional incentive to NOT have money? After all, "rich people are evil." And if you were rich...that would make you evil, right?

It's helpful to be aware of our emotions and thoughts. If you really believe that being rich is somehow wrong, you're probably going to have a more difficult time becoming rich than someone who believes it's a good thing.

I also liked how the article dodged the entire topic of inherited wealth.

What about it? Yes, some people come from rich families and never have to work a day in their lives. What exactly is the problem here?

So far as I can tell the middle class generally gets some sort of twisted sense of self-worth from the fact of working. No, I'm sorry...taking pride in your servitude is completely stupid.

Some people are beautiful. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are born into rich families. And guess what? Some people are stupid, ugly, and poor. There's no system of imposed fairness here. Maybe "all men are equal before God." But all men are not equal here on earth in human society. You can insist all day long if you want that people "should" be equal."

Let us know if insisting that ever makes you rich.

I have more of a problem with the bastards if they are wealthy. I'm not sure why, it just seems wrong.

Ahh....honesty. Thank you. This is very good. You have more of a problem with bastards when they happen to be rich. It's very healthy for you to be able to come to terms with that. Now...just ask yourself why you feel this way. You don't need to tell me, you don't need to try to explai it to bay12, but you, personally, in your own life will probably benefit from examining why you feel this way.

Is it for the reasons I suggested above? That on some level you believe that money is evil? Is there a religious motivation? "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." (Matthew 19-24) (Which, incidentally, is  mistranslation.) Did you grow up with parents who complained about rich people and that rubbed off onto you? What is it? And do these feelings negatively affect your life? Again...if on some level you feel that being rich is wrong...your own emotions will be working against you if you ever try to become rich yourself.

Noblesse Oblige.

If a wealthy person is uncomfortable with that responsibility (see: Ayn Rand objectivists), then they should give up their power.

Power doesn't work that way. You can say people "should" do anything you want, but people with power will continue to do as they please while people without will whine and complain about how things "should" be.

Look...personally, I'm all in favor of a post-scarcity society without money at all. But sitting around speculating how things would be nicer for you if the people with power would either serve your own interests or hand away their power to someone who would...however true it might be...is unproductive. My life would be nicer right now if my neighbor dressed up in lingerie and brought me some tea. But I'm not going to waste my time suggesting that she should "give up being sexy" if she's not going to use her sexiness to serve my own personal interests.

Saying that people with money "should" give up their money if they don't spend it on poor people is just as silly.

For me, it depends on what they spend the money on. There is no way in hell I can ever
see buying, say, a golden diamond'd chandelier for several millions as something moral.

Why? What's "immoral" about gold/diamond chandeliers? Nobody is being harmed by such a purchase. What could possibly be "immoral" about using one's energies towards ends of one's own choosing in manners that cause no harm to others?

It's very dangerous ground to say that X is "wrong" because it's too decadent. Where do you draw the line? Wealth is relative. You're probably sitting in a nice chair in a house with a computer, yes? Somewhere in the world there's somebody who doesn't have any of those things and hasn't eaten in days. To them...you, your clothes, the food you eat, the car you drive....probably all seems fantastically decadent and rich beyond reason.

But you don't see it that way.

Why should you expect someone else to see it that way just because they can casually buy a gold/diamond chandelier with the same casualness that you might buy a floral centerpiece for your kitchen table, or hanging bells for your backyard, or any other purely decorative thing you have around your house? None of these purchases are essential. They're all cosmetic. One is simply more expensive than the others, and the only difference between them is your own relative position as an observer.

As for my opinion on the wealthy; They're all bad people, or ignorant. If you allow people to starve, live in dirty hovels, and die of easily treatable diseases while you eat whatever you want, have multiple houses, and get a heart transplant when you're seventy, you are a terrible person and a parasite on society. I don't care how much of a contribution you make, noone has the right to put their own comfort over another's survival.

I see. So then, are you a terrible person?

Because I'm pretty sure there are some children starving in africa right now. Or if that's too far, there are still plenty of homeless in america. There are probably people in your home city right this very moment who are going hungry.

Why are you not helping them? Why are you sitting in the comfort of your chair reading posts on bay12 rather than helping those people meet their survival needs? You could. You could sell your chair and sit on a box. You could stop buying starbucks coffee every day. You probably don't really need an iphone. You could sell your car and take the bus.

All of these things are "comforts" that you choose instead of helping homeless, starving people.

Are you a terrible person?

Oh, you're not? Ok, well...if you made $10,000/yr more than you do right now, and spent that money on a nicer car, better food, and presents for your girlfriend...then would be a terrible person? Oh, still no? Ok...$20,000? $100,000? Where's the line? At what point does one suddenly become a "terrible person" for spending one's money on one's self rather than others?

There is no line.

Right now, odds are good that you're fantastically wealthy by the standards of a large portion of the world. You have food. You have clean water. You live in a house. You probably own a car. Much of the world doesn't have these things. Even in your own city there are probably starving homeless people who don't have these things.

But you don't perceive yourself as being rich. And you probably feel you deserve the things you have. Maybe you feel you deserve a little better than what you have. Well, guess what? People with more money than you feel the same, and there's no magic, arbitrary point of "I have X, and therefore I'm now bad if I don't give my money away."


Power is power. Money is merely one form of power. Power is not inherently evil. I can already imagine some of you reading this and angrily concluding that I'm suggesting that you should run out and go stomp on everyone else to get ahead. If that's really the message you're getting out of this, you're totally missing the point.

Power is not evil. It's ok to have power. If that power takes the form of money, so be it. People who have power...have power. And that's it. There's no "...and they're evil." There's no "...and they should give that power away." They just "...have power." And that's ok.

And if you want to have power, that's ok too. Maybe you don't know how to get power. That's ok. Maybe some people had an easier time getting power, or were given their power through family circumstances or luck. That's all ok. Winning the lottery would not make someone evil. Being born into wealth doesn't make them evil either.

I advise you all to let go of the emotional baggage you have about money. It's not helping you.

[ChairmanPoo]

"Net" is after taxes, not just life expenses.

I burn through all my base net earning with rent, food, light, and net. If it wasnt due to shifts (and family support) I'd be struggling.

[kaijyuu]

Noblesse Oblige.

If a wealthy person is uncomfortable with that responsibility (see: Ayn Rand objectivists), then they should give up their power.

Power doesn't work that way. You can say people "should" do anything you want, but people with power will continue to do as they please while people without will whine and complain about how things "should" be.

I know. That's the problem with morality; you're only obligated to have it if you buy into it. That this moral consideration has to do with how one spends money and uses power doesn't make it different than any other, though.

Look...personally, I'm all in favor of a post-scarcity society without money at all. But sitting around speculating how things would be nicer for you if the people with power would either serve your own interests or hand away their power to someone who would...however true it might be...is unproductive. My life would be nicer right now if my neighbor dressed up in lingerie and brought me some tea. But I'm not going to waste my time suggesting that she should "give up being sexy" if she's not going to use her sexiness to serve my own personal interests.

Saying that people with money "should" give up their money if they don't spend it on poor people is just as silly.

You assume I'm asking this self servingly. In a "perfect" world, I'd probably be giving up a lot too. There are many, many people worse off than I.


You can whine about practicality all you want. I won't argue there. But as for goals to shoot for, no one in power (and I do mean ANY position of power) should be there without taking upon quite a few responsibilities. That's the attitude that needs to be encouraged. It's called growing up, or maturing, or being an adult. Only the immature want to avoid having obligations to anyone else.

[Scoops Novel]

There are two words to describe why I don't like Eugenics: Stephen Hawking.

Without him, space would look much different.

Exactly. It would and could and has been abused, and the only thing we should and currently are changing is genetic defects, and not "defects" like autism say. The key problem here, especially with sterilization, is that once you start doing it to some some idiots are going to start applying that logic to other things, and we've been down that route before. In my opinion, this is like children born of incest. It shouldn't be encouraged by any means, but neither should it be banned thanks to the inevitable bias you'll have against anyone born of it or doing it regardless of whether they plan to have children or not. If we could kindly rerail?

Lordbucket, their is a difference in morals between what is happening and what you would like to happen. The fact that many, and even you, would do the same does not give any of you a blank cheque.

[Loud Whispers]

There are two words to describe why I don't like Eugenics: Stephen Hawking.

"Hippocratic oath."

[Descan]

Like I said, I'd need an objective scale, like an A.I. who can figure it out. And again, no killing of the potential genius who is crippled. Just heal their illness, or if that's not possible, make sure their kids get the genius bonus without the life-threatening disease/syndromes.