Time to on government assistanceFollow

'bit'?

It's more than a bit. It's like most of it.

When Samira chooses to enlighten you really shouldn't attempt to minimize her offerings. Spoiler

And exploiting others, of course. For example, being the largest employer in the country isn't exactly contributing to society if you don't pay livable wages but hoard money for yourself, your family and a board of directors.The "trickle-down" pretty much uses up all its influence by the investor stage, long before it gets to the worker.

Unless that ditch is a sewage ditch that leads to less sickness, and a cleaner lifestyle for others.

With a stance like this it's rather odd that you think so poorly of New York, arguably the financial capital of the world. You should be paving Wall Street in ****.

Haha, no, not odd at all. This kind of inconsistency and mental contortion is about par for your whacked-out arguments.

With a stance like this it's rather odd that you think so poorly of New York, arguably the financial capital of the world.

Please. I can hear London laughing from here. Did you mean "of the United States"?

**** is banned?

Haha... Wow, ok it's probably time to start finding new digs. We're censoring words that probably don't even break the PG mark. Ridiculous.

Edited, Aug 6th 2014 3:40pm by Jophiel

Well, there were some articles recently about New York surpassing London in importance, but that may very well have come from the Grey Lady. Still, given Wall Street's importance domestically, he decries the very pillar that his vaunted American capitalism sits.

Why do you hate America so, freedomfried?

But I was wearing Victorian clothes when I typed "sex". I don't understand what's needed here. A burqa, maybe?

RUMP HUMPING MOUTH DONGS

Since I have no idea what you're talking about, how about *you* tell me why you think this doesn't make an ounce of sense. I've never said that earnings is the *only* measure of contribution. Just that it's a good starting point to use. While not all contributions to society can be measured by earnings, most earnings do reflect relative contribution to society. I'm not sure how a mother's perspective changes that fact.



Sure, and we can measure how important it is to the whole of society by measuring how much we spend helping people spend more time with their families. I'd suggest though, that in the realm of "things we should encourage parents to do or not do", merely spending more time with their kids is kinda low on the list. Maybe "not be a drug addict" is higher? Just a thought.



So there you go. Seems like you're actually confirming what I'm saying.

Except that by that logic, the laborer should give his work freely as well. Being paid is "profiting", right? What you're really talking about doesn't have anything to do with whether what someone *does* contributes to society, but attempting to justify putting some authority in place empowered to arbitrarily decide how much profit is too much.

So if we pay the laborer say $50k/year, that's fine, but if we pay him $500k/year that's too much? That's silly. If others in society were willing to pay the laborer 10 times more for his work, it's most likely because what he's doing is actually worth 10 times as much to them. Thus, his "contribution to society" is 10 times greater. Evaluated by the actual members of society rather than some star chamber somewhere. That seems like a much better way to measure things IMO.



Yup. And we measure that contribution by paying him for it based on how much *we* actually value the path he dug and laid asphalt on. Seems kinda straightforward to me. If we don't use that method, then what method do you propose we use to determine how much he's contributing?




Except that your issue appears to have less to do with the actual contribution (ie: the work that was done) and more with "I don't like people making too much money". That's your own problem IMO, and has nothing to do with contribution to society.



Sigh. Not just arguable, but completely false. I get that in order to trick people into adopting your nutty ideology you have to first lie to them and convince them that their efforts mean nothing and it's all just luck that determines outcomes, but that's simply not true. Wealth is derived via good decisions. Period. There can be luck involved (almost always is), but you must *also* make good decisions. Otherwise the statistics on lottery winners declaring bankruptcy would not be so high. Clearly, it's not just luck.