CEO raises minimum wage to $70000, takes $70000 wage himself until profits are met.

[RandyForRubio]

Hold up, my parents having a 5000+ sq foot home on over an acre of land is wasteful Dala? Them owning 4 different vehicles is wasteful? Even though they're spending the money that they earned through their own hard work, that's wasteful and we should look down on that? Because that certainly is what you are implying.

Just think, if they wouldn't have done that, they could've paid for an employee's children's college education (oh wait, they did do that). I have plenty more examples just like that too.

Let's not equate quantity of house or personal ownership to wasteful. It's ridiculously short sighted.

 

[Harambe]

Hold up, my parents having a 5000+ sq foot home on over an acre of land is wasteful Dala? Them owning 4 different vehicles is wasteful? Even though they're spending the money that they earned through their own hard work, that's wasteful and we should look down on that? Because that certainly is what you are implying.

Isn't it? Don't you think that 5000+ square feet on over an acre is a bit wasteful? No?

Ok... where do you draw the line? 5000+ square feet per person? 12k? 20k?

When does enjoying what you've spent a lifetime earning go from ok to straight up gluttony?

 

[franklin]

I love it when N. American libs travel European castles and praise the vanity objects of a storied past only to come home and bitch about those who do the same here.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Isn't it? Don't you think that 5000+ square feet on over an acre is a bit wasteful? No?

Ok... where do you draw the line? 5000+ square feet per person? 12k? 20k?

When does enjoying what you've spent a lifetime earning go from ok to straight up gluttony?

Perhaps I think that after a lifetime of working, they've earned the right to spend their money as they see fit. Who is it hurting? Who is hurting that they have that much? It's not about any certain amount of property or anything, but why do people think they have the right to regulate how much somebody can have? Should people be shamed for buying things they can afford?


Anyways, is all that house necessary? Nope. But they wanted a big home for their children and their friends to play in. For their grandchildren to play in. And when you consider they own a couple thousand acres, no, I do not consider a house on one acre gluttonous.

 

[NAOS]

People rarely hurt others with their money (and by "money" I mean the hard coins and paper money that they call theirs). People hurt others via debt and extracting rents that go beyond fair limits.

This is a simplification, of course. But you are barking up the wrong trees if you continue to talk about "money" without addressing what it actually is, and without talking about where it comes from in each particular case.

 

[The Pearl]

Isn't it? Don't you think that 5000+ square feet on over an acre is a bit wasteful? No?

Ok... where do you draw the line? 5000+ square feet per person? 12k? 20k?

When does enjoying what you've spent a lifetime earning go from ok to straight up gluttony?

I am going to assume you support the right for anybody, regardless of station in life, to bring a child into the world? Don't you find it curious, upon self-reflection, that you could not be troubled by and avoid judgement of people living in urban and rural poverty willingly bringing a child, and usually multiple children into the world, yet have no problem judging the size of somebody's home or the number of cars in the driveway?

It is simple logic that society is exposed to a much smaller downsize risk when people with the means to engage in "gluttony" do so, as opposed to those that engage in behavior below a minimum responsible standard required as a member of society.

 

[NAOS]

I am going to assume you support the right for anybody, regardless of station in life, to bring a child into the world? Don't you find it curious, upon self-reflection, that you could not be troubled by and avoid judgement of people living in urban and rural poverty willingly bringing a child, and usually multiple children into the world, yet have no problem judging the size of somebody's home or the number of cars in the driveway?

It is simple logic that society is exposed to a much smaller downsize risk when people with the means to engage in "gluttony" do so, as opposed to those that engage in behavior below a minimum responsible standard required as a member of society.

^absolute trash^

 

[The Pearl]

Obamacare is a step in the right direction-- any reversal would be damaging. With this said, the system is still largely insufficient, and needs large-scale rehaul. What you seem to be missing is the fact that most people who file for bankruptcy from health care costs actually HAVE health insurance of some kind. Consequently, the more widespread adoption of health insurance alone will not stymie the economic impacts of health care costs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatal

Hence the problem, and why advocates of both parties tend to fight against initial major pieces of law that goes against their "core" beliefs. We are always sold these types of laws as solving problem A, B, C, D, etc. Yet in reality, two things almost always result. First, the law solves only A and B and has unintended consequences of creating problem, F, G, H, etc. Secondly, the initial law than mushrooms into something bigger than it was ever marketed to be, either unintentionally, or as a cynic like me often thinks, by design.

Simple example, tax cuts are never enough for those on the right and spending programs are never enough for those on the left.

 

[Harambe]

Perhaps I think that after a lifetime of working, they've earned the right to spend their money as they see fit. Who is it hurting? Who is hurting that they have that much? It's not about any certain amount of property or anything, but why do people think they have the right to regulate how much somebody can have? Should people be shamed for buying things they can afford?


Anyways, is all that house necessary? Nope. But they wanted a big home for their children and their friends to play in. For their grandchildren to play in. And when you consider they own a couple thousand acres, no, I do not consider a house on one acre gluttonous.

Then what do you consider gluttonous?

Can you see how other MIGHT see it as gluttonous?

 

[Harambe]

I am going to assume you support the right for anybody, regardless of station in life, to bring a child into the world? Don't you find it curious, upon self-reflection, that you could not be troubled by and avoid judgement of people living in urban and rural poverty willingly bringing a child, and usually multiple children into the world, yet have no problem judging the size of somebody's home or the number of cars in the driveway?

It is simple logic that society is exposed to a much smaller downsize risk when people with the means to engage in "gluttony" do so, as opposed to those that engage in behavior below a minimum responsible standard required as a member of society.

The whole point of this was not to call his parents gluttons, merely to see where someone might draw the line in the sand, and illustrate how others may see that line in a different location.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Then what do you consider gluttonous?

Can you see how other MIGHT see it as gluttonous?

I wouldn't consider it gluttonous considering how much they have.

Is an 80 lb child eating 5 pounds of shrimp the same as The Rock eating the same amount? If building that home caused financial issues, then it probably would have been.

Now tell me why you think it's wasteful, because you insinuated that it was.

 

[The Pearl]

The whole point of this was not to call his parents gluttons, merely to see where someone might draw the line in the sand, and illustrate how others may see that line in a different location.

Fair enough. I find it curious that when it comes to these type of economic/behavior issues that many folks default starting point for "drawing the line in the sand" starts at the top, rather than the bottom, yet in every other situation, we solve problems from the bottom up.