The Next President is...

[ViperMan]

13 hours ago, Negatory said:

Eh, the blunt truth is that wealth or debt transfer aren’t as much of big boogeyman words for a huge amount of people anymore after the stock market literally entirely detached from reality this year. Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Just Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg made ~$250B this year while the majority of the world was suffering. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make money - they should as they provide services that are in demand - but this is plainly immoral. I get that most people can’t fathom what making over 200,000 times what the average, well off, family makes. But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!? Oh they couldn’t live comfortably anymore probably. And socialism amirite? 

Philosophically, many will scream foul. “They earned it!” But that requires the current iteration of the capitalist system and tax structure we have set up now to, at a baseline, already be “moral” or “fair” in the eyes of society, and that’s just an opinion. An opinion you’re gonna have a harder time defending if things continue. Why is 2020’s system morally superior to say the 1960s when top tax brackets would be taxed at 90%? Back when people could graduate college debt free working part time and then immediately buy a house with their union job.

More and more, working class people are starting to wonder if, just maybe, the  current iteration of the system doesnt work for the average American. IMO, reagonomics did what it was supposed to do; it defeated the USSR. 30 additional years was a tragedy, and it needs an immediate revision.

Ehhhh, so party "A" makes a LOT of money, and that means party "B" needs to transfer some of their money to party "C"??? mmmmmmkay.

Copy timeout. Pk miss. Leave previous point red. Play.

[ViperMan]

On 1/1/2021 at 1:10 PM, Sua Sponte said:

Gillibrand has singlehandedly ruined the military justice system. You consider her "center?"

No. I do not consider her center. She is extreme left.

Edited January 3, 2021 by ViperMan

[raimius]

6 hours ago, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

If one dude masters the internet and makes $5trillion, while the rest of us get a 5% increase...we still gained 5%.  Good for him and good for us.

 

The "folks on the right" aren't asking the government to "give" tech billionaires more billions.  We all just do that because we use social media and like stuff delivered to our door two days after we buy the random thing in the internet.

[lloyd christmas]

On 12/29/2020 at 7:15 PM, drewpey said:

The democratic party isn't trying to force SJW justice down your throat in legislature. 

https://www.axios.com/congress-gender-identity-pronouns-rules-40a4ab56-9d5c-4dfc-ada3-4a683882967a.html

[jazzdude]

No. Actually there is not a limit. Sorry. 

There's a limit, but it changes with societal expectations and how people who are disadvantaged perceive their situation.

If those at the bottom feel exploited and that their situation is desperate, they may resort to other means to close the gap. Unionization, protests, strikes, or perhaps violence against management and company assets. Or it could be as simple as quitting and moving to another field/company where they feel better appreciated/compensated for their efforts if that option is available (not like we don't see that with AF pilots jumping ship for the airlines...and we've never seen pilots that leave be denegrated by leadership as unpatriotic...)

Is some of that illegal? Sure, but if people are desperate, they'll do desperate things, and it's not unprecedented. How history looks back on their actions depends on who wins-the line between freedom fighter and terrorist is a very thin line.

We're not there yet in the US, though it feels like we're moving that way.

[Negatory]

I am not disagreeing with many of your points. And I, along with many of you, are plenty well off. I get that. No shit we all have Roth IRAs and TSP and retirement and stable socialized jobs that allow us, very fortuitously, to be some of the lucky people in society. But most people can't, and that's the problem.

To just say there is no limit to wealth in society and entirely detach from reality by saying that how much the top 1% makes isn't connected to how much the working class makes is asinine. Because if they had incentives to give that money to workers as opposed to stock buybacks or letting it sit in stock options, maybe society would be better?

Also, it's not like the system we have today has been around for very long, yet you guys talk like it's holy and could never be altered. Since 1913 to now, the top end capital gains tax has ranged from 13%-77%. The personal income tax for the highest bracket has ranged from less than 10% to greater than 90%.

My argument is that Reaganomics and the policies that were implemented in the last 40 years have disproportionately helped the rich while making it harder to live and generate wealth for the vast majority of future and younger generations. That is the argument I want you to address.

For example, Millenials only hold 3% of total US wealth, whereas baby boomers held 21% if you go back in time to when they were the same age.

https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-less-wealth-net-worth-compared-to-boomers-2019-12

Purchasing power hasn't change at all in decades.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Inflation adjusted home costs have risen nearly 40% in the last few decades.

https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

Education costs have tripled since 1980, after adjusting for inflation.

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

These all began their upward trajectory after we decided that horse and sparrow (which literally comes from the sparrow getting to eat out of the horse's shit) economics (reaganomics) were what we were going to do as a nation.

My argument is that these are real, society defining, problematic issues that we need to address. We can fix some of these problems with the right market and governmental incentives/tax structure. Or you guys can keep hanging on to republican/neo-liberal fiscal conservatism which just saw over 20% of all circulating US dollars created just this year along with $4T in debt and the Fed swelling to over $7T. This is a crisis that you guys aren't addressing because your TSP appeared to go up in value, and I want to know why or when you think the current system will improve.

 

Finally, here's an additional hypothetical to one of your points: Why not just give the trillions directly to billionaires and the top 0.1% only because they're the "job creators" (actually pretty close to what already happens with large company bailouts of people like Boeing that just did stock buybacks over the last 10 years; socialize losses, privatize gains, right)? Don't give literally anyone else money, especially working class. Those billionaires, by the logic in this thread, will create all the jobs and totally donate to charity and fix the roads and trickle all over society if they just have a little more money.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Negatory

[pawnman]

19 hours ago, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

Doesn't matter because it doesn't affect how much the people below them make.  They're selling goods and services, not stealing from people.

[Negatory]

Counterpoint: The money they make is entirely from the labor of the people they employ and the machines they run.

[SurelySerious]

57 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Counterpoint: The money they make is entirely from the labor of the people they employ and the machines they run.

Cool, so only single person corporations are allowed so employers can’t “exploit” workers? Let me know how that works. They’re holding down the proletariat everyone!

[Negatory]

I didn’t say anything like that and you know it.

[SurelySerious]

4 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I didn’t say anything like that and you know it.

If you think that you didn’t say that the workers were exploited (doing their paid job) then you’re feeble minded. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by SurelySerious

[Negatory]

You can have organizations that pay more equitably that aren’t run by single persons. This is not black or white.

[HossHarris]

56 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You can have organizations that pay more equitably that aren’t run by single persons. This is not black or white.

So start one.  Let me know how the economics work out for you. 
 

be the change you want to see... or some such shit 

[DosXX]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/audio-trump-berates-georgia-secretary-of-state-urges-him-to-find-votes/2021/01/03/aba64f5f-8c3c-490f-af34-618ccea732d7_video.html

 

(Don't) Stop The Count?

 

 

[Negatory]

23 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

So start one.  Let me know how the economics work out for you. 
 

be the change you want to see... or some such shit 

Your point doesn’t make sense. Almost all organizations are already like that. They aren’t single paid single run organizations.

The point was the slippery slope fallacy.

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

You can have organizations that pay more equitably that aren’t run by single persons. This is not black or white.

It's not black or white, except all these places below where you're saying that because CEO X or Investor Y made money, that the working class loses.  Keep bashing capitalism there, Charlie; you're so confused you're tripping over yourself.

On 1/2/2021 at 11:36 AM, Negatory said:

Eh, the blunt truth is that wealth or debt transfer aren’t as much of big boogeyman words for a huge amount of people anymore after the stock market literally entirely detached from reality this year. Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Just Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg made ~$250B this year while the majority of the world was suffering. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make money - they should as they provide services that are in demand - but this is plainly immoral. I get that most people can’t fathom what making over 200,000 times what the average, well off, family makes. But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!? Oh they couldn’t live comfortably anymore probably. And socialism amirite? 

Philosophically, many will scream foul. “They earned it!” But that requires the current iteration of the capitalist system and tax structure we have set up now to, at a baseline, already be “moral” or “fair” in the eyes of society, and that’s just an opinion. An opinion you’re gonna have a harder time defending if things continue. Why is 2020’s system morally superior to say the 1960s when top tax brackets would be taxed at 90%? Back when people could graduate college debt free working part time and then immediately buy a house with their union job.

More and more, working class people are starting to wonder if, just maybe, the  current iteration of the system doesnt work for the average American. IMO, reagonomics did what it was supposed to do; it defeated the USSR. 30 additional years was a tragedy, and it needs an immediate revision.

 

On 1/2/2021 at 12:26 PM, Negatory said:

How about the money that’s pumped into the fed disproportionately going to a small swath of society? That’s moral, right?

And of course we all made money on the stock market. But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

 

On 1/2/2021 at 8:23 PM, Negatory said:

I do know the difference. Increase personal capital gains taxes, it isn’t that hard. Or do something more imaginative, I don’t think people care.

Whether you like it or not, disparity or perceived disparity has gotten so bad that the majority of one political party candidates proposed a wealth tax and weren’t laughed out of their races. Welcome to America where CEOS compensation has increased 1000% since 1975 while working class compensation has increased closer to 15-20%. The best part is the working class folks (that’s you guys), such as those in the military making 100-200k, will continue to perpetuate this trend.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

 

On 1/2/2021 at 8:36 PM, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

 

7 hours ago, Negatory said:

I am not disagreeing with many of your points. And I, along with many of you, are plenty well off. I get that. No shit we all have Roth IRAs and TSP and retirement and stable socialized jobs that allow us, very fortuitously, to be some of the lucky people in society. But most people can't, and that's the problem.

To just say there is no limit to wealth in society and entirely detach from reality by saying that how much the top 1% makes isn't connected to how much the working class makes is asinine. Because if they had incentives to give that money to workers as opposed to stock buybacks or letting it sit in stock options, maybe society would be better?

Also, it's not like the system we have today has been around for very long, yet you guys talk like it's holy and could never be altered. Since 1913 to now, the top end capital gains tax has ranged from 13%-77%. The personal income tax for the highest bracket has ranged from less than 10% to greater than 90%.

My argument is that Reaganomics and the policies that were implemented in the last 40 years have disproportionately helped the rich while making it harder to live and generate wealth for the vast majority of future and younger generations. That is the argument I want you to address.

For example, Millenials only hold 3% of total US wealth, whereas baby boomers held 21% if you go back in time to when they were the same age.

https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-less-wealth-net-worth-compared-to-boomers-2019-12

Purchasing power hasn't change at all in decades.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Inflation adjusted home costs have risen nearly 40% in the last few decades.

https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

Education costs have tripled since 1980, after adjusting for inflation.

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

These all began their upward trajectory after we decided that horse and sparrow (which literally comes from the sparrow getting to eat out of the horse's shit) economics (reaganomics) were what we were going to do as a nation.

My argument is that these are real, society defining, problematic issues that we need to address. We can fix some of these problems with the right market and governmental incentives/tax structure. Or you guys can keep hanging on to republican/neo-liberal fiscal conservatism which just saw over 20% of all circulating US dollars created just this year along with $4T in debt and the Fed swelling to over $7T. This is a crisis that you guys aren't addressing because your TSP appeared to go up in value, and I want to know why or when you think the current system will improve.

 

Finally, here's an additional hypothetical to one of your points: Why not just give the trillions directly to billionaires and the top 0.1% only because they're the "job creators" (actually pretty close to what already happens with large company bailouts of people like Boeing that just did stock buybacks over the last 10 years; socialize losses, privatize gains, right)? Don't give literally anyone else money, especially working class. Those billionaires, by the logic in this thread, will create all the jobs and totally donate to charity and fix the roads and trickle all over society if they just have a little more money.

 

5 hours ago, Negatory said:

Counterpoint: The money they make is entirely from the labor of the people they employ and the machines they run.

 

[Lord Ratner]

I don't think he's made the point well until his recent long post, but Negatory is on to something that (R) have been blind to.

The generational wealth disparity, home price increases, education cost increases, purchasing power stagnation, consumer debt increases, all coupled with the near-requirement for dual income households is a gigantic Master Warning light that we're ignoring. 

The government is shoveling as much fake money into the stock market as it can to stabilize the 401k accounts and underfunded state and local pensions that are heavily invested in equities to make up for their poor balances. And because the interest rates are still at zero in an effort to prop up the markets, there's nowhere else to put your money where it will grow. The boomers did a shit job of, well, everything, and now that they are finally retiring, they are collectively shitting their pants at the prospect of their houses and investment accounts losing value right when they are planning on needing them.

 

And the government is pouring gas on the already immolated future of the millennials and Gen Z in order to save boomers from a lifetime of abdicating responsibility.

 

Buckle up.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[Sua Sponte]

17 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The boomers did a shit job of, well, everything, and now that they are finally retiring, they are collectively shitting their pants at the prospect of their houses and investment accounts losing value right when they are planning on needing them.

The real reason why politicians/Trump want the economy fully opened.

[jazzdude]

Doesn't matter because it doesn't affect how much the people below them make.  They're selling goods and services, not stealing from people.

On one hand, I tend to agree with your sentiment here, at least on face value.

On the other hand, I see Negatory's points as well, many of which I think are valid shots that need to be addressed.

TL;DR: What responsibility do companies have to their employees, and to the society they operate in?

Here's a few questions that come to mind for me, and it's all shades of gray to me.

Are employees people to be invested in to help the company grow, or an expense to be minimized?

What is a fair wage to pay an employee: the value they bring to the company, or the minimum you can pay them while minimizing turnover and associated costs (or can you just ignore turnover costs)?

How much profit is ethical for a company to make? (A contracting officer could give you what the government's answer here as it relates to federal contracts)

How much profit is ethical for a company to make when it pays low wages that causes a good portion of their workers to require government assistance, transferring the burden of wages to society (aka funded by taxpayer money)? Does the size of the company change this answer, and where do we draw that line (mom & pop restaurant with a 2-3 extra employees vs Walmart or Amazon)?

Are corporate taxes an unfair expense on job creators (that money could instead be left at the company, where it would trickle down to the lower earning front line workers), or are they the cost of maintaining the greater economic system the companies operate in? Things along the lines of ensuring a fair market (like preventing/persecuting insider trading or preventing monopolies, water rights, land usage, etc), ensuring consumer protection (FDA, OSHA, enforcing public safety standards), or common infrastructure that enables many businesses (roads, ATC, etc). Companies benefit from the environment our government creates (to include foreign trade policies, taxes/tariffs, infrastructure, education, etc), but maintaining that environment costs money.

What if the AF tomorrow said "we're no longer paying flight pay during your initial UPT commitment?" Would that impact recruiting pilots? I'd bet probably not-there's still plenty of kids willing to sign at 11+ years of their life to fly a jet. Would it change retention? Again, I'd bet probably not, especially if some of the AF's flight pay savings were added to beef up the pilot bonus. Those that are career minded would still likely stay, as a government pension and healthcare access for life are still attractive items to get people to stay in until 20 (same incentive as our non-rated peers for staying in to retirement). We'd still have a competitive compensation package for pretty much anything besides working at a major airline (TA, GI Bill, GI Bill transfer, tax benefits associated with allowances). But cutting flight pay would send a pretty clear signal that pilots aren't valued in the AF. Fortunately, the AF doesn't have a profit motivation to drive down flight pay. Though DoD is looking to reduce personnel costs elsewhere (restructuring retirement with BRS, transitioning the military healthcare system to focus on military and push dependents out onto the market). And we've lived though decades of doing more with less (maintaining high ops tempo while shrinking the end strength), which gave us a small taste of some of the economic forces our general public deals with.

While people out in the civilian world may not have a legal commitment like an ADSC to their employer, they may be stuck due to financial commitments, such as repaying student loans or rent/mortgage. Sure, sometimes they can take some personal blame (state school vs private, choice of degree, bigger house than needed, family planning, etc), but circumstances can lock them into keeping a job where they can barely make payments, since quitting or trying to job hop may not be practical (restarting at a lower wage that doesn't cover the bills). And this ignores any medical issues or emergencies that may happen that can wipe out any savings/retirement unless you're employee has a good/great health plan. (And if you've never shopped the open market for personally procured health insurance, it's stupid expensive, easily $450/mo for an individual on a "silver plan", and you'd still likely be bankrupted if you have a major illness or significant emergency).

It's easy to point fingers at people who are struggling, but the truisms in an AF career apply to life in general: better lucky than good, life's not fair, and there is no justice. Then again, government is a reflection of what our society values, and can move to make things more "fair", it's just that what is "fair" is open to debate and should be debated vs solely black and white arguments.

[FLEA]

23 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

The real reason why politicians/Trump want the economy fully opened.

To keep the markets healthy for boomers or to kill them all off before they sink? 

[Sua Sponte]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

To keep the markets healthy for boomers or to kill them all off before they sink? 

You know which one. The vast majority of Boomers have only cared about themselves since, well, forever. 

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

You know which one. The vast majority of Boomers have only cared about themselves since, well, forever. 

They aren't the only ones.  Which generation is demanding other people pay for the student loans they signed for again?

[Swamp Yankee]

I find it interesting that many on the thread espouse the need for raw capitalism in the private sector. Fair enough.  However, as a thought exercise, let's apply that logic to the AF.  Instead of rank and time-in-service based compensation (admittedly with some rather arbitrary come-and-go incentives) let's be more like the private sector, with compensation tied to productivity.  In that case, C-130 guys (I'm biased) should be compensated significantly more than Eagle guys because arguably their contribution to actual productivity is significantly higher in the current environment.  Yes, yes, I know you've got to rank higher in UPT but that logic only matters so much.  In most white shoe firms, the Univ of X state grad who brings in more $billing will ultimately make more that the Harvard Law guy who is middling.  

Hmmm, maybe there is some room for debate here.  

[Guardian]

Every airframe thinks they are more important than the next. And it’s important to be that way. Competition is a good thing. Kinda like capitalism with competition.

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

They aren't the only ones.  Which generation is demanding other people pay for the student loans they signed for again?

From what I’ve seen, some Gen-Xers, Millennials, Zoomers, take your pick. Pretty much all of them who didn’t go to college when tuition was $200 a year and could be paid for by working part-time like Boomers.