[TDoS]

Would you like to bet that this number is relative to the net worth/richness/whatever of the person handing out the number?

I'll take the bet.  We established criteria for what constitutes "rich" in 2025 Amerika in this thread so that we would have an objective measure here on the Diner.

No...you erased my entire calculated number post in order to pretend it didn't exist, and then substituted your own. Your "we" was basically....you.

Upper Middle Class under this criteria should be plenty for anyone.
RE

According to you. I was quite happy that Mr and Mrs K-Dog could easily sell their house and continue to live with an excellent lifestyle for their 7 figure net worth, while you posited they would be homeless with so little available upon liquidating their real estate investment.

I did the math. It was just CFS.

[RE]

According to you.

No, according to Ivy Grace writing for Bezinga Financial Services.

RE

[K-Dog]

Would you like to bet that this number is relative to the net worth/richness/whatever of the person handing out the number?

Is a childish oversimplification.  The point is relative to:

Code Select Expand

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen
There, I made it easy for you, you can just copy and paste it into Google.  In only two clicks you will know what it means.

Actually $5 million would meet reasonable individual needs.  Especially if health care was nationalized.

[TDoS]

Would you like to bet that this number is relative to the net worth/richness/whatever of the person handing out the number?

Is a childish oversimplification.

It is one of the most basic scientific precepts....define your terms explicitly. Agree on the metric itself, in this case relative versus nominal. This is not a childish simplication, it is a relative perspective between someone with your networth versus the average McDonalds employee. They can't afford a heat pump for their house, and you can do it to feel better about how eco-friendly you are. And owning luxury cars, because you've earned them...but then you help save the environment by not using them very much. An intersting argument in favor of virtue signaling, but it really only works if you have the bumper sticker. "Sure I have a couple of Benz....but I don't drive them much to help save the environment."

The point is relative to:

Code Select Expand

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen

Thanks, I won the Bismark aware for excellence in German in high school. So Marx slogans that happily led to the real  life application by the likes of Stalin and Mao is the best you can come up with?

What's wrong with Arbeit macht frei? Good enough for the Nazi's, I bet it its right in with what Marx gave to Stalin, Mao and Kim II-Sung.

There, I made it easy for you, you can just copy and paste it into Google.  In only two clicks you will know what it means.

Actually $5 million would meet reasonable individual needs.  Especially if health care was nationalized.

$5 million is what someone sitting at the bottom of the 7 figure mark might think meets individual needs. Fine.  Seems reasonable to folks of our net worth.

And how much do you think that McDonalds worker thinks is enough? Because odds are it won't be $5M. They aren't factoring in nice matching luxury cars for them and their spouse I bet, or high value real estate, let alone their savings that some folks can happily invest at low rates because they feel that secure in their financial level. And can afford to be environmentally friendly with new tech for their home as well.

That McDonald's worker might be thrilled to just have a decent woodpile at the beginning of each winter. I know grandma did. Me, I was just happy we could put kerosene in the kerosene heater when we didn't have running water in the winter.

[K-Dog]

It is childish to confuse need and want.  An order of magnitude more than average keeps the wolf from the door and satisfies all needs.  If you think money is only for toys, and you do.  That is childish.

In capitalism wages are driven down to subsistence levels, enough for workers to survive and keep them working.  And perhaps just enough to keep them passive.  Capitalists compete by lowering wages.  Fair pay is not achievable under capitalism, and only under socialism can workers receive the full fruits of their labor.

Your claim is that this clear headed explanation results from my 'relative position' in life, and you spew childish right wing propaganda back at me in response.  To which I say, fuck you.

[RE]

It isn't about the relative perception of wealth of a low paid member of the working class, it's about the power that comes from being so rich that you can buy control over the direction of society.  The expensive toys like private jets, super yachts, mansions and AI data centers and rocket ships are symbols of the power and tools to exert power.  So what a Mickey D's employee thinks is rich s irrelevant.  What is relevant is the point at which you have enough wealth to begin to move in the circles where you can begin to influence the decisions that affect the direction of society.  When you have enough money to buy a $1M ticket to a Crypto Dinner at the WH, you're well into in that class.  When you    can spring for a junket to Vegas for your local State Assemblyman you're at the low end of the class.

Bezinga Finacial Services is a wealth management company that caters to this class of people, so they do research to identify their potential clients.  The numbers Ivy Grace put up identify their target clients and let their readers  who are still just climbing the ladder know how much it takes to be more than just another well off person with a big house and new Mercedes.

It's not a hard and absolute number because there are intangibles involved besides money, like family connections, your profession and education and your notoriety or fame that are involved also.  It's definitely more than just $1M though and less than $100M.  Depending on intangibles, in most cases probably $5-10M gets you to the bottom of the ladder in 2025 Amerika.

RE

[K-Dog]

it's about the power that comes from being so rich that you can buy control over the direction of society.

Yes money replaced the sword.  The violence of lead and iron is replaced by the violence of silver and gold.  Silver and gold taken from the surplus value of the labor of other men.

And like fish who are fine, oblivious to the water around them, people are oblivious to the power they have. People possess the power, but they are fine with giving it up.  Injustice is more comfortable than the unknown.

So the beat goes on.   

As an example:

Power from being so rich that you can buy control over the direction of society.  500,000 pro-growth, limited government Americans is the claim.  Reality is billionaires pay for it.  One of them and there are more than one is #25 in the world.  They give bribes awards to politicians.  And if you want to donate to the billionaires they will gladly take your money.  They have a link to that.

How sad it is, the parable of the tribes.

The bottom line is two possible outcomes:



(1) Mutual annihilation.

(2) Or an end to the struggle for power, a just world order guided by reason and values.

[TDoS]

It is childish to confuse need and want.  An order of magnitude more than average keeps the wolf from the door and satisfies all needs.  If you think money is only for toys, and you do.  That is childish.

I do not think money is only for toys. Again, please point claims without merit at others. Neither have I ever confused need and want. Once you learn this young, it sticks. Irritates the crap out of the wife, all the decades we've been married.

In capitalism wages are driven down to subsistence levels, enough for workers to survive and keep them working.

So, in America, after centuries of capitalism....why are my wages not at subsistence levels? Why are my kids wages not at subsistence levels? Why were my parents wages not at subsistence levels? Does this rule only apply to minimum wage workers....one of the clues in capitalism being the title "minimum wage"? Which is to say....there are still plenty who make more than this number and therefore capitalism STILL after centuries hasn't driven wages down to subsistence levels.

Is there a timeframe for your statement to take effect? Because within the advocates to the ideals of Marx, who then used that idea to run countries, those countries seemed to get to subsistence wages far faster than America.

And perhaps just enough to keep them passive.  Capitalists compete by lowering wages.  Fair pay is not achievable under capitalism, and only under socialism can workers receive the full fruits of their labor.

I dispute that fair pay is not achievable in American capitalism. I have been paid fair wages for most of my career. The wife is paid fair wages, no college degree, out of the work force until the kids went to college, and learned her way up the pay scale starting at age 40. Took her less than a decade to go WAY past fair pay.

So no, not ONLY under socialism can workers receive the full fruits of not JUST their labor, but can do the same with their brains and the ability to USE them while doing that labor.

Your claim is that this clear headed explanation results from my 'relative position' in life, and you spew childish right wing propaganda back at me in response.  To which I say, fuck you.

As someone who happily assigns every fault you can enunciate of your world view to me, I don't know what to do other than...sigh? As a registered independent, I see points on both sides of the aisle, and certainly don't espouse right wing propaganda. But if it makes you feel better to have a target, and vent, well then good for you, having a punching bag to let off some steam.

[TDoS]

It isn't about the relative perception of wealth of a low paid member of the working class, it's about the power that comes from being so rich that you can buy control over the direction of society.

Oligarchs are entirely a different point than the trials and travels of the "working man". Whatever the hell that might mean to different people.

The expensive toys like private jets, super yachts, mansions and AI data centers and rocket ships are symbols of the power and tools to exert power.  So what a Mickey D's employee thinks is rich s irrelevant.

What ANYONE thinks is relevant, as we are all created equal. Just with different perspectives. A Mickey D's employee has a perfectly valid opinion as to what seems "rich" to them. There is zero requirement, and it is probably wrong, to assume everyone of them would answer the question of "how much net worth would make you comfort in your life and living during your career at Mickey D's?" with "I WANNA BE ELON!"

Two different perspectives. Even K-Dogs perspective with his net worth didn't jump to "I WANNA BE AN OLIGARCH!!!" when he ventured his number.

What is relevant is the point at which you have enough wealth to begin to move in the circles where you can begin to influence the decisions that affect the direction of society.

Again....for YOU maybe. K-Dog says about $5,000,000 might be good. $1,000,000 seems reasonable to me as a generic guess. I have no objection to $5 million. If you have delusions of being a master of the universe type, sure, I WANNA BE ELON!!! is a reasonable angle. But that reflects the individual's personality answering the question...and a Mickey D's employee is no more required to want to be an oligarch then you are capable of becoming one at this stage in your life.

It's not a hard and absolute number because there are intangibles involved besides money, like family connections, your profession and education and your notoriety or fame that are involved also.  It's definitely more than just $1M though and less than $100M.  Depending on intangibles, in most cases probably $5-10M gets you to the bottom of the ladder in 2025 Amerika.

RE

$5-$10M might be a reasonable number I can agree with...but that certainly doesn't get you to the private jet / oligarch level, or master of the universe - shaping the direction of society level.

 

[RE]

$5-$10M might be a reasonable number I can agree with...but that certainly doesn't get you to the private jet / oligarch level, or master of the universe - shaping the direction of society level.

No, but it is enough to influence City Councilmen to rezone a neighborhood to accomodate your real estate deal or to provide more police patrols around your bizness.

We're not all created equal.  That's a myth.

RE

[TDoS]

The bottom line is two possible outcomes:

(1) Mutual annihilation.

(2) Or an end to the struggle for power, a just world order guided by reason and values.

Humans have been "mutually annihilating" each other, friends and neighbors, indigenous peoples, etc etc since the first Stone Age asshole clubbed down a rival with a rock in their hand.

A just world order guided by reason and values sounds great! Unless of course those humans who have been annihilating each other since they were cave men are involved.

[TDoS]

$5-$10M might be a reasonable number I can agree with...but that certainly doesn't get you to the private jet / oligarch level, or master of the universe - shaping the direction of society level.

No, but it is enough to influence City Councilmen to rezone a neighborhood to accomodate your real estate deal or to provide more police patrols around your bizness.

So is someone gathering up 100's of their McDonalds working friends and beginning protests outside of city offices, electing the councilmen in the first place (more poor people who can vote than rich ones...power of the people!) and all the usual grassroots movement stuff. Seemed to work ok for the civil rights movement.

But that runs smack into apathy, the drudgery of getting things done in a democracy, and all that crappy stuff that takes time and looks way too much like work.

We're not all created equal.  That's a myth.
RE

Tell it to the Declaration of Independence. Someone sure thought good thoughts about the equalness of man once.

Kidding aside, you are correct. K-Dog however seems to be irritated by the idea that this natural and completely normal range of capabilities might be accompanied with the expected unequal results.

We can't forget "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen".

The basic counter to which is...."yeah...but what if I sand bag on my ability as a 6'4" monster of a person capable of hoisting sacks of flour all day long unlike my midget like friends and I WANT TO BE LAZY INSTEAD".

This person figures out that while their ability at hoisting weight is substantial.....I really don't want to.....so I fuck off and occasionally hoist a flour bag and guess what? I get the same state supplied apartment as the schmuck who DOES load the flour as an honest worker. 

Stalin and Mao both had a tough time with this game. Probably because it ignores basic humans being assholes if not properly motivated. Capitalism seems to do that with money and living conditions. Socialism seems to do better with a better leveling of the playing field, stopping the top of the pile from collecting any more oligarchs than necessary, and coddling the lazy shits at the bottom so at least they aren't starving. But then they get buried by rapaciouis capatalists in their race to glory and riches for those who can get to the top of the pile. And maybe dragging the "some animals are more equal than others" along with them.

 

[K-Dog]

So, in America, after centuries of capitalism....why are my wages not at subsistence levels? Why are my kids wages not at subsistence levels? Why were my parents wages not at subsistence levels? Does this rule only apply to minimum wage workers....one of the clues in capitalism being the title "minimum wage"? Which is to say....there are still plenty who make more than this number and therefore capitalism STILL after centuries hasn't driven wages down to subsistence levels.

The American working class is not prosperous, the American working class survives at subsistence levels, unable to afford healthcare, housing, or dignified retirements without crushing debt. Yet imperialist propaganda insists Americans enjoy "high wages" compared to the Global South. This is a lie sustained by plunder. The U.S. working class is not paid well because of productivity or merit, but because empire extracts such grotesque surplus value from oppressed nations that crumbs can be tossed into the wind for plebes to catch.  Done to prevent revolt.

This person figures out that while their ability at hoisting weight is substantial.....I really don't want to.....so I fuck off and occasionally hoist a flour bag and guess what? I get the same state supplied apartment as the schmuck who DOES load the flour as an honest worker. 

The claim that social welfare rewards laziness is a deliberate fraud.  One designed to pit workers against each other while the rich steal the actual value of their labor. The reality? Capitalism already rewards idleness.  The idle rich. Stock parasites who inherit fortunes, do no work, yet extract wealth from millions. The landlord hoarding housing contributes nothing.  Yet landlords bleeds tenants dry. The CEO who fires workers to boost share prices gets a golden parachute, and his ass kissed.

You are a fraudster TDOS.

[RE]

So is someone gathering up 100's of their McDonalds working friends and beginning protests outside of city offices, electing the councilmen in the first place (more poor people who can vote than rich ones...power of the people!) and all the usual grassroots movement stuff.

Organizing people to protest against actions like goobermint malfeasance or to get affordable housing built is legal under the Constitution.  Accepting bribes and gifts from rich donors to influence a politician is illegal and the essence of corruption of the political process.  That you would equate these two fundamentally different actions and imply their equivalence makes very clear your own ethical bankruptcy.

RE

[TDoS]

The American working class is not prosperous, the American working class survives at subsistence levels, unable to afford healthcare, housing, or dignified retirements without crushing debt.

Again, chock full of relative terms. How much of what is "properous"? Am I the only one here who may have grown up at the "subsistence level"? Partially correct, your estimate of it, no healthcare, had a trailer but no running water in the winter and ran a kerosene heater to keep the place above 50F inside (no NG hookup available), and WHAT dignitifed retirement? Grandpap went into the county home. Grandma went into the local church hospice.

That was in the last century. So this is still around? Okay. You focus on it like it is todays news, as opposed to family history for quite a few Americans from deep into the last century.

This person figures out that while their ability at hoisting weight is substantial.....I really don't want to.....so I fuck off and occasionally hoist a flour bag and guess what? I get the same state supplied apartment as the schmuck who DOES load the flour as an honest worker. 

The claim that social welfare rewards laziness is a deliberate fraud.  One designed to pit workers against each other while the rich steal the actual value of their labor. The reality? Capitalism already rewards idleness.  The idle rich. Stock parasites who inherit fortunes, do no work, yet extract wealth from millions. The landlord hoarding housing contributes nothing.  Yet landlords bleeds tenants dry. The CEO who fires workers to boost share prices gets a golden parachute, and his ass kissed.

You are a fraudster TDOS.

My point in laziness was SPECIFIC. And PERSONAL. I grew up in the place and with the people where getting the union job holding a stop/start sign was nirvana. They weighed 300# being on the dole by the time they were 18. You can't call it a fraud when it was a reality I grew up in. You can disparage the idea that is commonplace, which might be true, but you can't alter the reality of my hometown.

Are the rich stealing stuff? Sure. Like there weren't robber barons doing the same thing more than a century go? History agrees with you about the rich stealing what they can, and people being poor down through the generations, and NONE of this is new.

Your indignation over American rich screwing over the poor is something you've known since when? We were taught about robber barons in the 3rd grade American history in the old church converted into a little coal towns 3rd-4th grade school house.

And because I knew what you are saying about these rich folks since I was taught it at age 8 or 9, this makes ME a fraud? What did I ever say that forced you to the conclusion I was uninformed about basic American history? Or my opinion on rich folk...in the early 20th century or the 21st?

You do this thing....plug in my username as a target and assign all your anti-capitalist irritation to it.

I get your enthusiasm already for anti most everything money or capitalist or whatever.

What I don't get, is where and when it formed? Did you learn about the rich robber barons and union organizers and how that conflict played out over half a century before it sort of worked itself out? Or was this a political awakening later because of meeting a billionaire or something? Or has it been with you as a personal awakening when you went from the professional world to the working man world?