National Thus Far

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Defining the term 'right' to mean something logically impossible i.e. something that can't exist, and then claiming that you can't have something because it doesn't exist; is just a tautology.

You're a fuckin' tautology.

[chubby]

also amusing- according to david.. poor people are stupid and lazy.... but dont you dare typify rich people as greedy and evil.

lol.

[Lightspeed]

The thing with our society and in fact human nature, is anyone who is smart, sensible and a psychopath can do very, very well. And they do.

Not that I am saying that all or even many rich people are psychopaths. I'm just pointing out that lacking empathy can be a real advantage in our world. Which I think sucks.

[chubby]

oh yeah, and the douche-bag of the month MUST be simon power.

good thing we finally got through the entirely left-wing habit of letting unqualified people (academics...) make decisions on things that they dont understand.
good thing we got through that whole 'nanny state telling me what to do' bullshit.
good thing we only legislate for rational reasons, not some stupid moral nonsense...

[David]

Originally Posted by chubby

also amusing- according to david.. poor people are stupid and lazy.... but dont you dare typify rich people as greedy and evil.

lol.

Poor people are one of the two.

Stupid people can't work "smart", therefore aren't likely to work in skilled positions where money is better. They're also less likely to have good self management skills around their finance, they burn more on interest.

Lazy people don't work "smart", therefore they're less likely to work in skilled positions. Due to this and the fact that they usually work on the basis of convinience, they also burn more on interest on finance.

Unless you're a charity worker, in which case, again, I say you're stupid.

[David]

Originally Posted by Cynos

See, here's your narrow-mindedness at work. Because I don't consider poor people to be stupid and lazy, I must therefore be poor.

Witnessing you ramble on about your employment situation and also the fact that you aren't being paid what you're worth to be in a job you consider you "enjoy" means I think you're stupid and therefore poor.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by David

Lazy people don't work "smart", therefore they're less likely to work in skilled positions.

Except that any lazy person who doesn't work smart must also be stupid because otherwise they're not very good at being lazy.

Pixie

[Vrtigo]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I wonder which one of us is right?

oh let me guess!! that would be you, amirite?

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by David

Witnessing you ramble on about your employment situation and also the fact that you aren't being paid what you're worth to be in a job you consider you "enjoy" means I think you're stupid and therefore poor.

Lol, learn to differentiate past tense. Case managers *aren't* paid what they're worth. And I didn't enjoy it. Which is why I taught myself to code and why I'm now a software developer, so fuck you and the assumptions you rode in on.

[David]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Lol, learn to differentiate past tense. Case managers *aren't* paid what they're worth. And I didn't enjoy it. Which is why I taught myself to code and why I'm now a software developer, so fuck you and the assumptions you rode in on.

Self taught software developer? Oooh, you must earn a grand total of 55k per annum.

Yes, like I said, you'll never be in a position of wealth to have any true understanding of wealth.

[Reformed_Quint]

Originally Posted by David

Oooh, you must earn a grand total of 55k per annum.

Not a bad pay package, certainly not 'professional' level income, But definitely respectable.

[Crankshaw]

Originally Posted by Reformed_Quint

Not a bad pay package, certainly not 'professional' level income, But definitely respectable.

While this number seems to be pulled out of no where, thanks to the power of spreadsheets I can say that 16.5% of the people in the IRD data ( 566k / 3.4mil ) have a (declared and taxable) income of $55k or greater. So I don't think it can be called low in the greater scheme of things, however it does highlight that 83.5% of people are paid less than that.

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by Crankshaw

While this number seems to be pulled out of no where, thanks to the power of spreadsheets I can say that 16.5% of the people in the IRD data ( 566k / 3.4mil ) have a (declared and taxable) income of $55k or greater. So I don't think it can be called low in the greater scheme of things, however it does highlight that 83.5% of people are paid less than that.

How many in that percentile call themselves "professionals" with "professional level income"?

[gentle]

Originally Posted by David

Self taught software developer? Oooh, you must earn a grand total of 55k per annum.

Yes, like I said, you'll never be in a position of wealth to have any true understanding of wealth.

Wealth isn't exactly the same as income. A business owner will pay themselves very little but still be wealthy.

I doubt you'll ever be be in position of true wealth to have any understanding of it either. At the moment you probably have an understanding of high income, but from my experience all that entails is some psuedo upper class display, like the purchase of an A4 audi or some other meaningless object.

[Lightspeed]

Bastards want to make me listen to ads while I listen to broadcast classical music!

[fixed_truth]

I think David is a great exemplification of the adage about money & happiness.

[gentle]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I think David is a great exemplification of the adage about money & happiness.

What, that money can't buy you happiness but it sure helps?

How about; if money can't buy me happiness someone should at least give me the opportunity to prove them wrong. - can't remember who said that sorry.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by gentle

What, that money can't buy you happiness but it sure helps?

I prefer "Money can't buy you happiness but a lack of it sure can buy misery"

[fixed_truth]

I was thinking more along the lines of 'The only problems that money can solve are money problems'. Or 'Money often costs too much' is a goodie.

[David]

Psycho analysis on the internet is serious business.

Confronting people with discussion is an easy way to learn about people and their point of view. Most people form point of views without any thought as to why they think that way, challenging it means they have to reflect on their rationale.

In the case of money buying happiness, depends if you're aware enough about your own interests. Self awareness allows money to buy happiness - me, I'm a superficial/materialistic bastard, the A8 in the garage, the wakeboarding boat and a watch that costs more than most people earn in a month make me happy.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by David

Confronting people with discussion is an easy way to learn about people and their point of view.

Imo, from your 'discussion' here it comes across that you are dissatisfied. A happy person isn't concerned with ensuring everyone knows that they have money, nor do they treat others less well off with contempt.

[David]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Imo, from your 'discussion' here it comes across that you are dissatisfied. A happy person isn't concerned with ensuring everyone knows that they have money, nor do they treat others less well off with contempt.

I'm glad to know you wouldn't generalise the way that all happy people act toward others, because otherwise, I'd think you were pulling both your point and your attempt at validating it directly from your ass.

oh.. wait.

[Thomas Meatball]

Ah yes, typical Haydos. He is rich and he wants everyone to know it.

"I'm rich! LOVE ME! Please. Nobody else does. I'm not even sure that I love myself"

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by David

Self taught software developer? Oooh, you must earn a grand total of 55k per annum.

Yes, like I said, you'll never be in a position of wealth to have any true understanding of wealth.

Good guess. Bear in mind I've been a software developer for all of 18 months now. Before that I was on public sector salaries, so I'm very happy with increasing my income by 37.5% over a year and a half. But whatever.

I'm not really into internet pissing matches over how much I earn. I'm reasonably confident my earning capacity will increase significantly, but I don't feel the need to prove this to you. Let's just agree that your money makes you a better person than me, for a given value of better, and move on.

I do feel sorry for you - you seem to consider money to be the ultimate arbiter of a person's worth, which is so hopelessly shallow and wrongheaded that you're bound to spend most of your time generally miserable.

But still, you'll be miserable while wearing some nice shoes, so there's that.

[DrTiTus]

You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

[David]

Oh yes, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the bulk of this conversation is around wealth. God no.

CCS strikes again.. with the impotency of a 117 yr old Jewish eunuch.

[David]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

If you aren't any of those things, why do so many work beyond the level they would need to in order to provide base level essentials for themselves? Most could probably clothe, feed and support themselves on fifteen hours a week.

We work the extra 25, why?

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by David

If you aren't any of those things, why do so many work beyond the level they would need to in order to provide base level essentials for themselves? Most could probably clothe, feed and support themselves on fifteen hours a week.

We work the extra 25, why?

Just to keep in theme:

God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact.

[David]

That's George Carlin, isn't it? Or very close to sentiments he expressed in some of his shows.

[DrTiTus]

Fight Club's Tyler Durden.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by David

If you aren't any of those things, why do so many work beyond the level they would need to in order to provide base level essentials for themselves? Most could probably clothe, feed and support themselves on fifteen hours a week.

We work the extra 25, why?

We work the extra 25 because a system was intentionally put in place to keep us working those extra 25 hours. Consumerism isn't a natural outworking of the human experience. Men who understood who human motivation quite intentionally developed this system.

[Reformed_Quint]

^^ I like that lightspeed.

[David]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

We work the extra 25 because a system was intentionally put in place to keep us working those extra 25 hours. Consumerism isn't a natural outworking of the human experience. Men who understood who human motivation quite intentionally developed this system.

Yet jobs exist and the ability to work lower hours exist, yet very few ever take this opportunity.

Why? Because it would be counterproductive to their goal in life - having a better clock radio than their neighbour.

[Reformed_Quint]

Originally Posted by David

Why?

Because we all have 20+ years of advertising rammed down our throats telling us exactly what you are trying to convince us of - We need more shit to make us happy.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by David

Yet jobs exist and the ability to work lower hours exist, yet very few ever take this opportunity.

Why? Because it would be counterproductive to their goal in life - having a better clock radio than their neighbour.

Which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that from cradle to grave we are bombarded with messages telling us stuff we can buy and why life will be better for it.

This is sarcasm. And I suspect the neighbour is only a secondary concern.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

We work the extra 25 because a system was intentionally put in place to keep us working those extra 25 hours. Consumerism isn't a natural outworking of the human experience. Men who understood who human motivation quite intentionally developed this system.

Didn't you recently spend about $1000 for a cat? Just sayin

[Lightspeed]

Now that is an excellent point. I think it's commonly perceived that to oppose something you have to stand apart from it. But like everyone else, I am a product of this society and system. I hate it, even while I am a part of it.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Imo, from your 'discussion' here it comes across that you are dissatisfied. A happy person isn't concerned with ensuring everyone knows that they have money, nor do they treat others less well off with contempt.

LOL whut?

You don't need to be pleasant to be happy. Indeed some people derive enjoyment from architecting other people's misery.

[Lightspeed]

CCS being a prime example. Too bad he's as much of an architect as is George Costanza.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Juju

If people weren't rewarded for putting in years of study, practice and hard work, then they wouldn't do it would they? Sure there are some people who would do their job for free because they love it so much, but they are the exception. You say that I'm convinced that this is the only way, yet have not offered any different scenarios to discuss? Give me some scenarios that you think would be "better" and I'll be happy to debate.

Where did I say that striving to better one self financially by climbing the income ladder would equal one not caring about their role in society? Rich people can and often are philanthropists. Just because they have the lions share of wealth, does not mean they do not care about society.

I'm not convinced that any other point is ludicrous. What I think is ludicrous is that you think skill should not be a factor in ones remuneration. It's... odd.
If we are not rewarded for gaining a skill, why the hell would you bother? How on earth would humans advance as a race with no incentive?

Originally Posted by Saladin

Didn't you recently spend about $1000 for a cat? Just sayin

Hi and welcome to the world of consumerism ls, can I sell you this can of coke?