Minimum Wage Sucks Because

[Speaker to Animals]

Dude, wealth inequality is not a bad thing. Wealth inequality usually means things are getting better. People who can innovate are doing so, getting rewarded, and everybody else gets to share in the benefit of those innovations.

Steve Jobs became rich as fuck for inventing the iPhone. He made far more than any of us ever will. Are you pissed because he made more money and not happy that you have a fucking smartphone??

[Speaker to Animals]

All I am saying is this: for most of human history, yes, producing more shit would have made people happier. But we surpassed that point probably in the 1950s. We already maximized that strategy of making ourselves happier.

You won't get any happier with more shit. You might think, hell, if I won the lottery, I'd be buying all kinds of sports cars and banging 10s every damned day. How can that not make me happier?? Well, you might even believe you are living it up while you are burning your candle at both ends, but eventually the bill comes due and you end up less happy. Most lottery winners are less happy several years down the road.

The state has convinced you now that everything is "shit."

Will fidget spinners and slurpees make us better off? At some point the market will tell you.

Will a cure for cancer, virtually free energy, and faster-than-light travel make us better off? At some point the market will tell you.

I am sure Mammon appreciates your faith.

[Fife]

Fancy talk from the one singing the praises of the central planners, Snowman.

:goteam: :drunk:

[Speaker to Animals]

Fancy talk from the one singing the praises of the central planners, Snowman.

:goteam: :drunk:

LMFAO


How am I singing praises for central planners?


I am pointing out that producing more isn't going to make us any happier. We passed that point probably in the 1950s. I will grant you that we could invent something that could increase your health or longevity, but that's not happiness. You could still live a long, miserable life.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Dude, wealth inequality is not a bad thing. Wealth inequality usually means things are getting better. People who can innovate are doing so, getting rewarded, and everybody else gets to share in the benefit of those innovations.

Steve Jobs became rich as fuck for inventing the iPhone. He made far more than any of us ever will. Are you pissed because he made more money and not happy that you have a fucking smartphone??

Not at all. Steve Jobs actually created something, and that's great. Same with Bezos, Zuckerberg, and anyone else that actually created a product and business.

Do you actually think the 1% is made up of innovators?

[heydaralon]

If I remember correctly, Moses made the Israelites drink some kind of gold-water mixture for smelting that calf. Gold is a pretty soft metal. Even so, I imagine it wreaked havoc on their bowels...

[Speaker to Animals]

Dude, wealth inequality is not a bad thing. Wealth inequality usually means things are getting better. People who can innovate are doing so, getting rewarded, and everybody else gets to share in the benefit of those innovations.

Steve Jobs became rich as fuck for inventing the iPhone. He made far more than any of us ever will. Are you pissed because he made more money and not happy that you have a fucking smartphone??

Not at all. Steve Jobs actually created something, and that's great. Same with Bezos, Zuckerberg, and anyone else that actually created a product and business.

Do you actually think the 1% is made up of innovators?

Yes.


What we got right in the 18th century was the transition to reward the innovators. That's what a market does. When you add in the government, you get the opposite of that. Insomuch as there exists people in the 1% who do not innovate, they do so because they depend upon government coercion and corruption (i.e. Wall Street).

[Fife]

Fancy talk from the one singing the praises of the central planners, Snowman.

:goteam: :drunk:

LMFAO


How am I singing praises for central planners?


I am pointing out that producing more isn't going to make us any happier. We passed that point probably in the 1950s. I will grant you that we could invent something that could increase your health or longevity, but that's not happiness. You could still live a long, miserable life.

I was ribbing you a bit on that UBI goofiness, probably a bit off the mark.

As to your current point, I don't mean to say that being a Luddite is like loving on central planning; I'm just saying that point is just goofy.

You have no idea what the next big thing is -- none whatsoever. Nobody does, really.

How many people were going long on the internet in the 1950s? How many people were going long on penicillin in 1918?

Back to how this is related to the UBI hooey: When we subsidize consumption, and penalize production (or innovations if you prefer), guess which way the respective needles will go.

[Fife]

Dude, wealth inequality is not a bad thing. Wealth inequality usually means things are getting better. People who can innovate are doing so, getting rewarded, and everybody else gets to share in the benefit of those innovations.

Steve Jobs became rich as fuck for inventing the iPhone. He made far more than any of us ever will. Are you pissed because he made more money and not happy that you have a fucking smartphone??

Not at all. Steve Jobs actually created something, and that's great. Same with Bezos, Zuckerberg, and anyone else that actually created a product and business.

Do you actually think the 1% is made up of innovators?

^^^^WANTS MOAR GOVERNMENT

[Speaker to Animals]

Fancy talk from the one singing the praises of the central planners, Snowman.

:goteam: :drunk:

LMFAO


How am I singing praises for central planners?


I am pointing out that producing more isn't going to make us any happier. We passed that point probably in the 1950s. I will grant you that we could invent something that could increase your health or longevity, but that's not happiness. You could still live a long, miserable life.

I was ribbing you a bit on that UBI goofiness, probably a bit off the mark.

As to your current point, I don't mean to say that being a Luddite is like loving on central planning; I'm just saying that point is just goofy.

You have no idea what the next big thing is -- none whatsoever. Nobody does, really.

How many people were going long on the internet in the 1950s? How many people were going long on penicillin in 1918?

Back to how this is related to the UBI hooey: When we subsidize consumption, and penalize production (or innovations if you prefer), guess which way the respective needles will go.

Happiness does not mean a long life or access to the Internet. The Internet has not made people happier by itself. We were discussing happiness. The reality is that happiness has been on a decline in America since the 1950s, especially for women, though not quite so much for men since most of us find happiness in work.