U.S. Stock Market is Rigged

[Nightcrawler]

Another new related article about our 'rigged' economy with our Vice President:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-blasts-republicans-obama-reelection-drive-revs-140937873.html

Vice President Joe Biden is stepping up attacks on Republicans as the party of "privilege" and defenders of an economy that is "rigged" against the middle class, while casting President Barack Obama as a champion of "the workers."

"Stated simply, we're about promoting the private sector. They're about protecting the privileged sector," Biden told a United Auto Workers crowd Thursday morning in the pivotal battleground state of Ohio.

I guess the class warfare is really going to escalate heading into the election. The slow collapse of my country continues.

[Talbain]

Yep.  We're basically anti-progress, pro-blame-the-other-guy. 

[SargeSmash]

Got to disagree on the whole socialized medicine thing.  The government doesn't have the money.  And even if they did control the whole thing, they couldn't come up with the money to make it work.  Not saying the system we have is just peachy, 'cause it's not, but the "solutions" given by the Affordable Care Act don't do anything to fix things, and going further that direction isn't going to make things any better.

Anyway, that's kind of divergent from the original point...

Ironically, in theory, the bill could work.  If there were no human factor.  Unfortunately, there is.  Many systems would work well in a perfect world, but if the world were perfect, we wouldn't need a system to being with.  So really, what we have is a myriad of systems that are more or less susceptible to human nature.  Putting too much control in the hands of governmental authority is a recipe for disaster.  As is allowing corporations too much control.  I still think we're leaning toward the former.

And if I haven't elucidated properly, I blame this stupid head cold that's making me feel miserable. 

[Kiyoshi Aman]

The government can't afford to give healthcare to every citizen for free.  I don't believe that just being a citizen of America gives you the right to free healthcare.  By the way that goes for other things too, like FEMA bailouts for natural disasters.  Yeah it really sucks that healthcare costs so damn much here, but we'll see how Obama's plan works for all of us.

Yes, actually, it could. The problem isn't with free healthcare, it's with healthcare costs—which seriously need regulation. In particular, at least two things need to happen:

• Medical equipment and medication need a price cap based on the actual costs that went into producing them.
• Malpractice law needs to be tweaked so that doctors can practice without being afraid of being the subject of a malpractice suit.
• It ought to be illegal to advertise specific medication. Ads which discuss some signs of particular illnesses or disorders without reference to particular drugs are fine, however.

• We need to transition from cowboy-style medicine to a sentai-team style. (To clarify: team-driven medicine, where various specialists partner up in order to better serve their patients.)

Some of that won't necessarily fix healthcare costs, but it will result in better healthcare.

[SargeSmash]

Definitely agree on the malpractice thing.  I've got a few doctor friends, and it's one of the ever-present fears there.  Especially in my home state.

Of course, I think part of the costs are to do with the insurance companies existing outside of their normal intended boundaries.  Insurance shouldn't be for routine care.  Catastrophic, though?  You betcha.  Then there's all the compensation for all the people that receive care and never pay up.  Those that do pay are stuck with those costs, which is why things are so expensive.

Ironically, in some ways, we have "socialized" care already, just not through the government.  Given that those that do pay are paying for those that don't or can't pay, insurance, in many ways, becomes a moot point.  We're either going to pay for it though the government or through our medical provider and insurance.  At least we have the option now to deal with the doctors and work out a payment schedule that works for both parties.

I do think there is more team-based medicine practiced than one would think, though.  Typically, any time I go in, I'm referred to a specialist after it's determined what the problem is.  I'm actually doing physical therapy right now, for an old sports injury.

[Kiyoshi Aman]

No, that's outsourcing, unless you have a number of specialists in one practice and can see the one you feel is most relevant to a given problem without having to be examined by the primary-care physician to ascertain the correctness of your own thoughts.

[realworksuks]

Why don't you offer a solution to the original dilemma you proposed?   That being, everyone by age 26 should have at least $10,000.  Tell us how that's possible for every dreaming american?

Offer a solution that is universal, that works for all people through all walks of life.  For those who grew up in unstable teenhoods, have physical or mental handicaps, or have others depending on them financially.  For those who weren't fortunate enough to have a parent drill the importance of money into their heads before the age of 16.  For those who had a spade of financial bad luck, such as a lawsuit, or a alimony/child support inducing divorce.  Etc. Etc. Etc.  You're just going to say "hard work and determination", right?  Because that always works.  Sheer luck, cultural status, and parental upbringing, three factors outside of everyone's control, obviously have nothing to do with it, right?

You might not realize why everyone seems to be against you in this thread, so I'll make it realllll clear for you sport.

You have an air of elitism and a lack of empathy.  Two traits most people dislike.

Despite what you believe, it took more than just hard work to make the money you did at such an early age.  For example, you were lucky to have a positively influencing father and solid home life as a teen.  He drilled the importance of frugality, hard work, and college into your mind.  Despite what you may believe, that was his idea, not yours.  When I was 16 the best thing I could get out of my dad, was a night were he was actually sober and not trying to punch me in the face.  But I had just as equal an opportunity as you did, right?  What a fucking joke.  My dad never said a single word to me about going to college, let alone how much it cost.

Let me give you a piece of advice your dad never did.  Empathy is more important than money.

Let me tell you a true story.  When I was 23, I didn't have $10,000 in my bank account.  I did have a little cash in my pocket, that was all I had that week.  So, I was putting $10 of that into my car's tank at a gas station.  Suddenly, an older black guy walks up to me and asks if I have any spare change.  He looks like a decent fellow, just down on his luck.  Well, I had $5 and a quarter left, and that was all I had.  I bought him a newspaper with the quarter, and gave him the $5.  I asked him to take that money and walk over to the burger joint next door.  I said, "buy yourself a lunch, and look through the want ads for a job".  Now maybe all I did was buy him a lunch that day.  But maybe, maybe he found a job in that paper.  Either way, I did a lot more for him than just say "well you're older than 26 so you should already have $10,000, what's your problem pal?"   See, that "pocket change" $10,000 of yours would have completely changed his entire life. Maybe even turned it completely around permanently.

I see people run up in the bank.  They are focusing their lives on little numbers in a transient account, rather than the blossoming trees that grow just outside the building.  Do you understand what I mean?  You aren't taking a single cent past your last breath.

You are taking what I said and blowing it absolutely out of proportion.  For the typical person that had a good family life, could "make hay" when they were in high school and didn't have many expenses because they were living at home, I think it's reasonable that a good money manager could easily have $10K by the time they are 26.  For the people that have extraordinary circumstances and are either supporting parents or others, have a disability where they can't work or go to school, etc. etc., then yeah, maybe it's out of their reach.  I just looked back at my original comment and yes it was untactful and I should have worded it differently. 

And $10K is not pocket change to me.

Really? What do you base this on? That's way off as nearly any non wage earner is earning money via capital gains and thus taxed at 15%, which the majority of wage earners in this country (At least over 60% after a rough look at US census data and IRS publications) are at or beyond! 5 of our 6 tax brackets meet or exceed that tax rate. Furthermore, the top of the ladder is the worst. I guess you haven't followed Warren Buffet (11% effective tax) or your doppelganger Mitt Romney (15% effective tax) as the staple examples. Rare? No, I'd say it's commonplace based on the data I've seen on the distribution of taxes, household incomes, and effective tax rates.
Of course they do because they make the majority of money in the US. That will ALWAYS be the case regardless of tax code. Just 1% of Warren Buffet's money is more than a lifetime of taxes from a whole group of wage earners and that will true under any circumstances.

Provide me some data that shows how many people live on investment income alone.  I can guarantee you that you will be shocked as very very few people do that unless they are retired.  Besides, they had to earn it somehow except in the rare case that they inherited everything.  Why should anyone be taxed on capital gains in the first place?  Investment income taxes is taxing money that has already been taxed at least once.

No, I'm not, though it shouldn't have any bearing on my arguments anyway, assuming you genuinely respect them.

If you must know, I'm a mutualist.

Also, yes, the government can afford to give every American healthcare.  If it cut defense spending by around 10% and fed that into a healthcare plan for Americans, it could do it so easily that Americans would never again have to worry about it.  If it cut defense spending at all it could afford to do many more things for its people, rather than trying to blow up third world countries that have no real defenses to speak of other than familiarity with underground cave networks.  We are so far ahead of other nations militarily that there is no need for any of the current technology we have.

Hell, if the American government just made it so that all health insurance companies were owned and mandated by the government, rather than private corporations, America could afford to give all its citizens healthcare. 

The reason Americans don't all have healthcare is purely because of greed and the tyranny of capital, it has nothing to do with the American government "not being able to afford it."

How did you come to the figure of a 10% cut in defense spending provides funding for a nationalized healthcare plan in America?  Also the reason I asked if you were a communist is because you implied that a janitor is as valuable to society as a CEO.

[Nightcrawler]

Provide me some data that shows how many people live on investment income alone.  I can guarantee you that you will be shocked as very very few people do that unless they are retired.  Besides, they had to earn it somehow except in the rare case that they inherited everything. 

I provided you with a wealth of data that you conveniently ignored all of. No thanks. How about you provide me with some data for your point this time (or any time)? I have based my claim with supporting evidence in contrary to your baseless claim with none.

Why should anyone be taxed on capital gains in the first place?  Investment income taxes is taxing money that has already been taxed at least once.

Do you really work in the financial industry? I'm not a financial analyst, but I'm pretty sure it's taxed because it's effectively new income. And that new realized income to the receiver has not been previously taxed. Wouldn't it be entirely unfair if a wealthy individual could make all of their money entirely tax free while wage earners paid taxes? Ugh....

Well I think I'm about done. You don't want to talk about numbers and you can't concede to any degree that there is any disparity or unfairness after it has been factually demonstrated. 

[Talbain]

How did you come to the figure of a 10% cut in defense spending provides funding for a nationalized healthcare plan in America?  Also the reason I asked if you were a communist is because you implied that a janitor is as valuable to society as a CEO.

The 10% is just a rough estimate of what I expect it would cost to transition, but in reality, it really wouldn't cost anything other than removing needless administrative costs (which is, surprise surprise, a result of the rich screwing the poor).
http://www.pnhp.org/

I didn't imply that a janitor is as valuable to society as a CEO, a janitor is as valuable to society as a CEO.  You're an ass if you think otherwise.

[realworksuks]

I provided you with a wealth of data that you conveniently ignored all of. No thanks. How about you provide me with some data for your point this time (or any time)? I have based my claim with supporting evidence in contrary to your baseless claim with none.

Do you really work in the financial industry? I'm not a financial analyst, but I'm pretty sure it's taxed because it's effectively new income. And that new realized income to the receiver has not been previously taxed. Wouldn't it be entirely unfair if a wealthy individual could make all of their money entirely tax free while wage earners paid taxes? Ugh....

Well I think I'm about done. You don't want to talk about numbers and you can't concede to any degree that there is any disparity or unfairness after it has been factually demonstrated. 

I just searched the whole thread and didn't see any posts where you provided data except one post that discussed wage earners, and it wasn't anything new to me.

I'll search for some proof for you.

And yeah sure let the rich people accumulate as much money as possible through their investment income.  Let them stimulate the economy and spend as much as they see fit.  Whatever they don't spend will be subject to the estate tax which under Obama's plan is quite high for rich people.  I think I remember something like 50% of it gets taken but I am not for sure.  I don't have the time just this minute to figure out the exact details.

Just a thought.

The 10% is just a rough estimate of what I expect it would cost to transition, but in reality, it really wouldn't cost anything other than removing needless administrative costs (which is, surprise surprise, a result of the rich screwing the poor).
http://www.pnhp.org/

I didn't imply that a janitor is as valuable to society as a CEO, a janitor is as valuable to society as a CEO.  You're an ass if you think otherwise.

A janitor needs to be in society sure.  The obvious difference is that anybody can be a janitor but only a few have what it takes to be the CEO of a company.  Just like few have what it takes to be a doctor or a surgeon.  Or at least does what it takes (goes to school etc.).  A janitor has no skill. 

If you guys think they should both be paid equally, you are very detached from reality.

[Kiyoshi Aman]

Anyone with the right training and the right aptitudes can be a CEO. Anyone with the right training and the right aptitudes can be a janitor, too. The difference lies in that you need to be severely lucky if you want to be a CEO. And most CEOs, or at least most CEOs of large companies, come exclusively from rich families.

Frankly, at this point, you seem to be stuck in "trying to be right in at least one instance so you can claim to be right in all instances" mode. You are failing to acknowledge when anyone else is correct whenever you have been proven wrong. I think you need to stop doing that, because it's severely damaging your credibility for any instances in which you are right or have a point. (That said, I haven't seen any such instances.)

(In fact, I haven't seen you respond even once to any post in which someone has shown you to be wrong. That's...pretty bad.)

[DankPanties]

A janitor has no skill.

See, there's that elitist streak again!   

If you want, I could break it down hard for you, but I'll keep it simple.  Janitors work their asses off (physically demanding), and have to plan a strategy in order to clean all required areas / duties in X amount of time (mentally demanding).  You might be surprised at how much planning a janitor has to do in order to clean a large company every single day (or night) and not miss any areas or trash cans.  They also have to keep track of cleaning supply stock and do inventories for their storage closets and such.  Being a janitor is a seriously tough job!  I was one for three years in high school.  So it really bothers me that people in general look down on the folks that do it.  Sure a janitor isn't as technically skilled as a CEO, but without said janitor, said CEO would be waste deep in his own filth in no time at all.

Also, the CEO, vice president, plant manager, etc. of where I work did not get those positions based on skill.  They got them based on nepotism.  I work for a family owned company that employs about 300 people.  But all the top slots are filled with people who got their jobs based on their last name, not their abilities.  You might be surprised to find out how far the "good ol' boy" club goes in businesses.  CEOs and presidents are often let in through the back door, not the front.

[SargeSmash]

As much as I'd like to think that anyone can do anything, I don't think that's true.  We've all got certain talents and limitations.  And while you could train someone to become a CEO, that doesn't imply that they'd be a good CEO.

That being said, it takes less skill, but still a lot of effort, to be a good janitor.  But, being a less skilled position, it's going to bring less pay.  They're absolutely useful, and needed, but they're not up there with a good CEO.  Or a good doctor.  Or a good engineer.  And that's why they don't receive as much pay.  Now, there are certainly some places where I'd rather have the janitor in charge than the CEO, but that's just how things are sometimes...  but most businesses can't survive with incompetence in leadership positions like that.

Now, don't take this as me ragging on janitors.  For goodness sake, don't take me out of context here.  I have a tremendous amount of respect for them doing a job that I wouldn't like to do, and don't do because I have other options available to me.  I'm always happy to see someone out there, trying to make a living and working hard.  I know that, if things had turned out differently, that might be me.  There are a myriad of things that influence where we end up, sometimes it has a bit to do with culture and environment, and a large portion has to do with the choices we make.

I've been friends with the cleaning staff at pretty much everywhere I work, I know they're good people.  As a human being, they're just as worthy as anyone else.  In many cases, more so than the professional staff.  But the job itself, not necessarily.  It's not a knock on them as an individual.  Nor should it be.  That's where the elitism comes in.

[realworksuks]

See, there's that elitist streak again!   

If you want, I could break it down hard for you, but I'll keep it simple.  Janitors work their asses off (physically demanding), and have to plan a strategy in order to clean all required areas / duties in X amount of time (mentally demanding).  You might be surprised at how much planning a janitor has to do in order to clean a large company every single day (or night) and not miss any areas or trash cans.  They also have to keep track of cleaning supply stock and do inventories for their storage closets and such.  Being a janitor is a seriously tough job!  I was one for three years in high school.  So it really bothers me that people in general look down on the folks that do it.  Sure a janitor isn't as technically skilled as a CEO, but without said janitor, said CEO would be waste deep in his own filth in no time at all.

Also, the CEO, vice president, plant manager, etc. of where I work did not get those positions based on skill.  They got them based on nepotism.  I work for a family owned company that employs about 300 people.  But all the top slots are filled with people who got their jobs based on their last name, not their abilities.  You might be surprised to find out how far the "good ol' boy" club goes in businesses.  CEOs and presidents are often let in through the back door, not the front.

A janitor has hardly any skill, a subway worker has hardly any skill, a movie theater host has hardly any skill, a concession stand worker has hardly any skill.

A doctor has skill.

You guys can go back and forth and make this statement sound as honorable and politically correct as you want.  But at the end of the day things are the way they are for a reason.  I don't give a damn how hard a janitor has to work, the bottom line is that just about everybody that can breathe could successfully do the job, if trained, despite their intelligence level or education.

Just like anybody could mow a lawn by the way.  Same exact thing. 

[9volt Kappa]

What's your point? Do you even have one?

[realworksuks]

What's your point? Do you even have one?

As I said earlier, it was implied that a janitor and a doctor or CEO hold equal values in society.  Clearly they do not.  Therefore the skilled workers are paid more.  Even professional athletes for example.  They are the best in the world at that sport and entertain millions of people.  Can you do that?  No of course you can't, only the few hundred players on the leagues can, therefore they are in demand.  Supply and demand.

If you think a janitor and a CEO deserve the same pay that is communism, plain and simple.

[Kiyoshi Aman]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Talbain]

A janitor has hardly any skill, a subway worker has hardly any skill, a movie theater host has hardly any skill, a concession stand worker has hardly any skill.

A doctor has skill.

You guys can go back and forth and make this statement sound as honorable and politically correct as you want.  But at the end of the day things are the way they are for a reason.  I don't give a damn how hard a janitor has to work, the bottom line is that just about everybody that can breathe could successfully do the job, if trained, despite their intelligence level or education.

Just like anybody could mow a lawn by the way.  Same exact thing.

The thing that you're missing, and frankly, the thing that everyone else is missing, is that one job is no less needed than others.  You need janitors, or your building becomes a shithole, just like you need CEOs, or people don't get done what they need to get done.  I don't think of people as being more or less skilled, because at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.  They need to do their job, and if they do it well, they are every bit as deserving as the next guy who also does their job.  I see this as treating people as equal human beings, not cogs in a goddamn machine.

And realworksuks, you are an ass.  I have no respect for you, or what you stand for.

[I.S.T.]

As I said earlier, it was implied that a janitor and a doctor or CEO hold equal values in society.  Clearly they do not.  Therefore the skilled workers are paid more.  Even professional athletes for example.  They are the best in the world at that sport and entertain millions of people.  Can you do that?  No of course you can't, only the few hundred players on the leagues can, therefore they are in demand.  Supply and demand.

If you think a janitor and a CEO deserve the same pay that is communism, plain and simple.

A. No one's said that a janitor and CEO deserve the same pay.

B. Why are you using Communism like a curse word? Aside from it being totally incapable of working on a level higher than small city, I don't see a problem with it.

[Talbain]

If you think a janitor and a CEO deserve the same pay that is communism, plain and simple.

Do you even know what communism is?  People don't receive pay at all in truly communist systems.  Their means of production are owned by the state!  What this means is that people have no choice in what they do, their jobs are literally assigned by the state.  There is little or no freedom, and it's entirely anti-meritocratic.  Do you even have the faintest clue about what you're talking about?
March 17, 2012, 05:15:28 am - (Auto Merged - Double Posts are not allowed before 7 days.)

A. No one's said that a janitor and CEO deserve the same pay.

I did, and I firmly believe this.  Let me ask you something.  If everyone in, say, your building, had equal stake in the day-to-day goings-on in that building, would you tell your floor staff, assuming they had the power to vote on their salary, that they deserve less than the other workers?  Could you look those workers in the eye and tell them that their work was any less important?