When satire sort of...isn't. Sort of.

Which is all anyone can do.

You certainly won't be your best if you don't try to be!

None of which goes against the fact that on many metrics such as home ownership rates, younger generations have seen a falloff in the past decade. Hopefully that does turn around but until it does so over a sustained enough period to undo the lost years of opportunity post GFC I don't see anything incorrect with my original post.

Source: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/08/homeownership-by-age.html

So am I, since before you were born. Those m/billions aren't pouring in yet. When do you reckon I can expect them?

Hmm. Maybe what you're doing isn't worth millions or billions.

So why are teachers not worth millions and billions, but trust fund owners are?

I can't speak for trust fund beneficiaries (or lottery winners or people who get large inheritances from their dead Aunt Sally).

Teachers--like most skilled laborers--are paid according to the relative scarcity of their skills and the demand for them. (Teachers are a little different as they are usually public employees, so there is some non-market intervention in their salaries.)

When you write a book that generates that much in sales.

So if there's more money in having uneducated workers, or workers who know just enough to press the right buttons, that is where the trend will follow, and teachers will receive even less value for their labor. Capitalism only serves itself, and those who sit at the top. Everyone else is a slave to the system. Capitalism did a fine job of pulling us out of feudalism, but now it needs to die because it's eating itself.

Marx said something along those lines in the 19th Century. It was already proving false in his time. Educated workers create more value, and the value they create goes back into consumption, and that benefits both the capitalist and the worker.

Again, labor is worth what it can command in a competitive marketplace. Its value isn't conferred on it by someone.

I think you couldn't be more wrong. People in capitalist societies are far better off.

Why? Because they have to work for their share? Do you imagine a system where one gets one's daily bread (and all the other necessities and niceties of life) without working? Who provides these things if no one works?

I don't see any evidence that's the case. We continue to get wealthier and receive more opportunities.

You're wrong.
Nothing I say would convince you otherwise, either, because you have to believe that what you do has value, and that you earn your money. Your whole idea of success hinges on there being a system where other people are under you.

No, I'm pretty sure that's right. I mean, if we're not better off, how many years further back in the past would you prefer to have been born? Was life better 50 years ago or 100 years ago?

I do. I certainly won't receive my money if I don't do what I do. And they don't give it to me just for showing up.

There are people under me, and I'm under other people. Some people earn their money by supplying my needs, I earn mine by supplying others'. Everyone ultimately works for someone, and everyone ultimately uses the services of others.

And you couldn't imagine it any other way, because that is how you have been taught to see everything.

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is another workable way.

Plenty of information already exists on the subject, not that it matters with you. That said, I'm just stating my own opinion. Don't worry, friend, you'll be rich someday. Totally. It's so close. Just a little more.

Yep, this is usually the part where you quit.

I don't expect to be rich, certainly not private jet rich, but I'm not...unwealthy. I learned some skills, and made positive contributions throughout a career, so I earn a good salary, have money in the bank, own real estate, and have shares in a company that may one day be worth something. So, I think I got my piece of the American Dream.

You stopped listening before we even started, so why does it matter? I'm not wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. You're like a smarter, more capable Dayton3 when it comes to things you refuse to believe. Nothing moves you if you don't want to be moved, regardless of what you're shown.

Hey, it's your body you're selling for pennies. That you turn around and rent out other people's bodies for pennies is something you have to reconcile with yourself.

I'm responding to your points.

If you're not showing me anything, I can't really be moved, can I?

Point me toward the person who will offer me dollars.

I don't have a problem with any of it.

You're not thinking about them, you're just repeating what you have been told. Like I said though, just my opinion.

Even when people show you things, lots of things like links to sources, statistical data, pictures of kids in actual cages, you don't accept it unless it fits what you already believe to be true. Anyone who has debated with you beyond a paragraph has seen how quickly you lock down your opinions.

Hence why I used the Dayton comparison. Dayton will ask people to explain something to him, and when they do, he'll demand proof. When it's provided, he ignores it and keeps asking the same damned questions over and over again, and nothing is learned.

I know you don't.

I defend my opinions.

You make a claim, I challenge you on it, you run away and claim I'm not listening.

I am listening. You're just not saying anything other than attacking me personally.

I state an opinion, you challenge it with your own opinion. People have stated facts, you've stated your opinion, and then when they've shown evidence, you still stand by your opinion. Note how I'm not running away, by the way, I'm just not foolish enough to think posting link after link would matter for you in any way. Some people I can have a discussion, but not you.

Define wealthier.

In real terms those on the bottom end seem to be getting worse off. Sure, shiny trinkets and phones might be cheaper now but in terms of things like job security, stability, home ownership and healthcare costs those on the bottom of the pile are seeing themselves increasingly cut out of that growth and in some cases even sliding sliding backwards.

Yep. Those of us on the bottom rung get to drown first.

QFT

AOC has proposed a 0.01% tax on stock transfers, with estimates showing this could raise $777B over a decade. FOX has, predictably, flipped its lid and decried it as an idea that would ruin all those poor, poor stock traders who "exist on the slimmest of margins!", despite many other world stock exchanges having transfer taxes and still doing well.

New York State already has such transfer fees - not sure how they compare to a flat 0.01% per transaction as they seem based on the unit value of the shares.

Oh, because the government has found another scheme to steal other people's money, and it's a tiny amount, that's okay. Got it.

You're a selfish cunt who wants the benefits of living in society without paying his dues, got it.

That old communist saw.

And the board communist shred with him.

I ask you again, where do you draw the line, under what circumstances do you believe Congress cannot tax people? From my interactions with you, there seems to be no line.