I've heard the pay is less than average but the benefits package can be pretty solid.
The global 1% has a net worth starting at $880,000USD.
That might seem like a lot of money, but it's less than you need just in your retirement account to retire in many places. A teacher, or an engineer, or even someone who just lucked out and bought a house in the right place in the 90s might have a net worth much higher than that.
That last point is particularly important, because maybe you have an 800,000 house but less than 100,000 in other assets? Guess what then? You can't even retire on that, ever. You're just a slightly well off wage slave.
"Just sell the house then!" oh, great. So then you'll have not enough money to retire on and also no house in the place you set down roots.
Your choice at the end of your life as part of the vaunted 1% may be you can sell out to Blackrock and live in a very luxurious cardboard box or you can slave away working for a Blackrock owned company so the city doesn't seize your property from you for lack of payment of taxes.
Even if you consider "The millionaires", that's a lot of money, but not that much money, especially if you lucked out and have a paid off house.
When we're talking about "Millionaires", usually we're considering what a millionaire used to be -- and that point is important. According to the bank of Canada (and the same really applies generally to the federal reserve), a million dollars today was only 77,000 in 1950. A million dollars in 1950 would be closer to 13 million today -- a number that's closer to being what we might consider "rich".
As for income rather than wealth, according to the charity website https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/, if you're single and have an after tax income of $75,000, you're in the global 1% of income earners. It's not a terrible income, but that's still a working stiff right there. You can make that kind of income without a degree or anything as long as you're willing to do something dirty and dangerous.
I think it helps show that when we're talking about "the elites", it isn't even one in a hundred people, it's a very small number of people who were both very lucky and very well connected.
It also helps to show a totally unintuitive fact about the global money system -- the fact that many people live perfectly fine lives on much less money. That isn't because you're a big fat rich loser and they're better people. It's because the cost of living is so high in "rich" countries that you just need that much money to have the same general quality of life as in other regions. A lot of immigrants are coming now to our "rich" countries and realizing it's actually really expensive and then just moving right back because it turns out the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence after all.
All of this is to say that we need to be careful about how we slice the rich and poor, and how we judge people based solely on being just past some arbitrary round number, be it 1% or 1 million dollar net worth. You can make some big mistaken assumptions if you do.
That might seem like a lot of money, but it's less than you need just in your retirement account to retire in many places. A teacher, or an engineer, or even someone who just lucked out and bought a house in the right place in the 90s might have a net worth much higher than that.
That last point is particularly important, because maybe you have an 800,000 house but less than 100,000 in other assets? Guess what then? You can't even retire on that, ever. You're just a slightly well off wage slave.
"Just sell the house then!" oh, great. So then you'll have not enough money to retire on and also no house in the place you set down roots.
Your choice at the end of your life as part of the vaunted 1% may be you can sell out to Blackrock and live in a very luxurious cardboard box or you can slave away working for a Blackrock owned company so the city doesn't seize your property from you for lack of payment of taxes.
Even if you consider "The millionaires", that's a lot of money, but not that much money, especially if you lucked out and have a paid off house.
When we're talking about "Millionaires", usually we're considering what a millionaire used to be -- and that point is important. According to the bank of Canada (and the same really applies generally to the federal reserve), a million dollars today was only 77,000 in 1950. A million dollars in 1950 would be closer to 13 million today -- a number that's closer to being what we might consider "rich".
As for income rather than wealth, according to the charity website https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/, if you're single and have an after tax income of $75,000, you're in the global 1% of income earners. It's not a terrible income, but that's still a working stiff right there. You can make that kind of income without a degree or anything as long as you're willing to do something dirty and dangerous.
I think it helps show that when we're talking about "the elites", it isn't even one in a hundred people, it's a very small number of people who were both very lucky and very well connected.
It also helps to show a totally unintuitive fact about the global money system -- the fact that many people live perfectly fine lives on much less money. That isn't because you're a big fat rich loser and they're better people. It's because the cost of living is so high in "rich" countries that you just need that much money to have the same general quality of life as in other regions. A lot of immigrants are coming now to our "rich" countries and realizing it's actually really expensive and then just moving right back because it turns out the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence after all.
All of this is to say that we need to be careful about how we slice the rich and poor, and how we judge people based solely on being just past some arbitrary round number, be it 1% or 1 million dollar net worth. You can make some big mistaken assumptions if you do.
If everything a spectrum isn't him saying "you're not X, You're Y" also wrong by his own logic? Having a discussion and being a dick is a spectrum after all and so you need to check your privilege and be more tolerant of being on the spectrum!
They had it up here for a while, the thing that I couldn't get over was just all the red. Like, colors do affect people's mental state, that's one reason why for example Walmart goes with blue because it's kind of a calming mellow effect. Other businesses go with white because it represents purity and cleanliness, or for branding they go with black because it represents authority. Discount places often go with yellow because yellow represents value for some reason.
But red is just fine for a logo, but it's a really weird choice to make most of your store red. It's the color of spilled blood, it tends to represent auction and intensity, again great for a logo but I don't understand why you would fill your store with it.
(Then there was a fact that Target didn't have fuck all worth buying)
But red is just fine for a logo, but it's a really weird choice to make most of your store red. It's the color of spilled blood, it tends to represent auction and intensity, again great for a logo but I don't understand why you would fill your store with it.
(Then there was a fact that Target didn't have fuck all worth buying)
It's pretty funny that "enjoy some Canadian healthcare" is now commonly understood as suggesting you kill yourself.
There's a big reason why in Greek literature hubris is often the cause of a tragedy, and it is undeniable that an organization can have hubris. Particularly for historically successful organizations, it's very easy to start to imagine that the organization's success is preordained, and not the result of continuously making good decisions.
That's why these people come in thinking that they can use the power of the organization to do whatever they want, and in so doing they destroy it because the only reason that the organization was successful was that they were doing the right things and the moment that they stopped doing the right things they stopped being successful.
That's why these people come in thinking that they can use the power of the organization to do whatever they want, and in so doing they destroy it because the only reason that the organization was successful was that they were doing the right things and the moment that they stopped doing the right things they stopped being successful.
I've had my posts on fedi and a blog, the latter for many more years, and the blog is basically masturbating. The only play I get is with Russian spam bots.
Seems like organic net traffic has dropped off a cliff since the earlier days of the web.
Seems like organic net traffic has dropped off a cliff since the earlier days of the web.
[Admin mode] Ok, the upgrade should be complete now, and it appears that everything is back up.
Not related to anything, but anyone else find it strange how quickly the linux kernel's version changes now? It was 2.x for a dogs age. Suddenly it's like bam 4 bam 5 bam 6
Not related to anything, but anyone else find it strange how quickly the linux kernel's version changes now? It was 2.x for a dogs age. Suddenly it's like bam 4 bam 5 bam 6
I read part of the guy's manifesto, and it seems to me mothafucka needs to turn off the damn teevee before making any life decisions like setting himself on fire.
I don't know why they're particularly worried anyway. Give an example of the trucker protests, anyone could go on YouTube and watch hours of a boring yet fun celebration of freedom, and if you read it in the news, you'd think that it was a terrible hellscape that destroyed the world, and it seems like an awful lot of people seem think that it was a terrible hellscape that destroyed the world. What does it matter what images you come up with if people will just believe what they're told anyway, damn the evidence?
[Admin Mode] Distro upgrading today, so there might be some intermittent service. Hoping to keep it to a minimum, but just be aware.
Nobody has killed more communists than other, slightly different communists.
Checkmate.
Checkmate.
This is very irresponsible reporting. As we all know, immune systems are a far right conspiracy theory.
When you think about it, the soldiers shooting people is a de-escalation tactic. People throwing rocks at them will definitely stop throwing rocks at them, and if done correctly will never throw rocks at soldiers again.
I don't even know what the problem is now with the left, they should love this guy. He hates Jews, they hate Jews. He likes socialism, they like socialism. He wants the government to exert force to control people and companies, so do they. He's a vegan, he loves amphetamines, he's a shitty artist, he wants to do practically dubious public health measures that don't help but do harm political enemies, he's basically their guy. Not to mention he hates bankers!
It's no wonder that one group that rephrased Mein Kampf for intersectional feminism got published in far left journals! By now it could be published unabridged!
It's no wonder that one group that rephrased Mein Kampf for intersectional feminism got published in far left journals! By now it could be published unabridged!
It seems like Lincoln was a jerk, I'd believe there was more than one dude in on it.