American Companies That Support China, are you surprised?

dandyrandy said:
getpocket.com

A World Without Retirement

The population is getting older and the welfare state can no longer keep up. After two months of talking to people in Britain about retirement, it’s clear that old age is an increasingly scary prospect.
getpocket.com getpocket.com
Click to expand...
A future where retirement means work until you drop?

" Looming on the horizon, however, is a complete dismantling of this safety net. "

That's what many of the 1% want us to think. It is true that the end of the baby boom means our societies can't continue on in the way it has. And so, we need to think about doing things differently. That said, the article was written for a small group in the upper middle class who are looking at a dismal life after retirement. Welcome to the masses who were already there. The so-called safety net in this country was never plush enough to retire in wealth after a lifetime of working lower income.

Usually the Guardian is more responsible about purging propaganda from their opinion pieces but this one slipped through:

"They grew up assuming they could expect the kind of retirement their parents enjoyed – stopping work in their mid-60s on a generous income, with time and good health enough to fulfil long-held dreams. "

For much more than half of the people in this country who are 60 and older, this was never the case. The median income in this country is $35,000 per year. A large majority in this country do not move out of the social-economic group they were born into. Known as social mobility, less than 10% of the people in this country move up or down the social ladder. About 90% stay where they are. I don't see how a parent who is making $35,000 or even $50,000 per year and maintains themselves and their children at a moderate standard of living can save enough to retire rich. I just don't.

After a lifetime of productive, hard work while raising kids who contribute to the future economic and social health of this society is it too much to expect society to prevent extreme poverty among the elderly? I don't see that as a just system. I just don't.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog said:
A future where retirement means work until you drop?

" Looming on the horizon, however, is a complete dismantling of this safety net. "

That's what many of the 1% want us to think. It is true that the end of the baby boom means our societies can't continue on in the way it has. And so, we need to think about doing things differently. That said, the article was written for a small group in the upper middle class who are looking at a dismal life after retirement. Welcome to the masses who were already there. The so-called safety net in this country was never plush enough to retire in wealth after a lifetime of working lower income.

Usually the Guardian is more responsible about purging propaganda from their opinion pieces but this one slipped through:

"They grew up assuming they could expect the kind of retirement their parents enjoyed – stopping work in their mid-60s on a generous income, with time and good health enough to fulfil long-held dreams. "

For much more than half of the people in this country who are 60 and older, this was never the case. The median income in this country is $35,000 per year. A large majority in this country do not move out of the social-economic group they were born into. Known as social mobility, less than 10% of the people in this country move up or down the social ladder. About 90% stay where they are. I don't know how anybody making $35,000 or even $50,000 per year can afford to raise kids, maintain themselves at a moderate standard of living and retire rich. I just don't.

After a lifetime of productive, hard work while raising kids who contribute to the future economic and social health of this society is it too much to expect society to prevent extreme poverty among the elderly? I don't see that as a just system. I just don't.
Click to expand...
What do you think abt social media outlets like FB refusing to take account for political adds deliberately lying?

popular.info

Facebook says Trump can lie in his Facebook ads

This is the online version of the Popular Information newsletter.
popular.info popular.info
 
Fogdog said:
A future where retirement means work until you drop?

" Looming on the horizon, however, is a complete dismantling of this safety net. "

That's what many of the 1% want us to think. It is true that the end of the baby boom means our societies can't continue on in the way it has. And so, we need to think about doing things differently. That said, the article was written for a small group in the upper middle class who are looking at a dismal life after retirement. Welcome to the masses who were already there. The so-called safety net in this country was never plush enough to retire in wealth after a lifetime of working lower income.

Usually the Guardian is more responsible about purging propaganda from their opinion pieces but this one slipped through:

"They grew up assuming they could expect the kind of retirement their parents enjoyed – stopping work in their mid-60s on a generous income, with time and good health enough to fulfil long-held dreams. "

For much more than half of the people in this country who are 60 and older, this was never the case. The median income in this country is $35,000 per year. A large majority in this country do not move out of the social-economic group they were born into. Known as social mobility, less than 10% of the people in this country move up or down the social ladder. About 90% stay where they are. I don't know how anybody making $35,000 or even $50,000 per year can afford to raise kids, maintain themselves at a moderate standard of living and retire rich. I just don't.

After a lifetime of productive, hard work while raising kids who contribute to the future economic and social health of this society is it too much to expect society to prevent extreme poverty among the elderly? I don't see that as a just system. I just don't.
Click to expand...
Actually I know many people who have retired at 62. They worked for one of the fortune 500 companies with a pension. P&G GE, AT&T etc. But manufacturing and other companies have used automation and technology to employ less people. I have a relative who used to be a switchboard operator for at&t who is retired. So with less pensions now and most depending on interest which is terrible or take your chances with the market. But with low wages and housing, medical, etc. being so expensive I see a much worse future even for my kids. Medicare will be gone at the present rate of growth.
 
scumrot derelict said:
What do you think abt social media outlets like FB refusing to take account for political adds deliberately lying?

popular.info

Facebook says Trump can lie in his Facebook ads

This is the online version of the Popular Information newsletter.
popular.info popular.info
Click to expand...
When my family started using facebook, I took a look at the information I had to give them in order to join, I listened to what Zuckerberg had to say about privacy, I looked at their business model and said "no thanks". That organization might not be corrupt but only because they had no moral standing from the beginning. When a service is free to the user then the user is the product that is sold to financial interests. No way was I going to let them into my life. But, then again, I'm a minority in this country. Facebook has done a lot to build community and keep families in touch with one another. So I see some good in them, but only good from how people use them. The company itself is not good.

The propaganda and fake news ads that inundate social media are an outcome of the business model they use. Facebook is one egregious example of this. The company itself has the personality of a psychopath. They charm and say the right things like the best of liars and then take what they want without concern about right and wrong and who gets hurt or how much harm they do to the US. They even cast the people they harmed as the ones at fault, not themselves. In a way, we should expect all companies to behave like this. At its core, capitalism has no ethics. So, we should not listen to their complaints when we regulate them if their products cause harm.

Companies like Facebook whose business models depend on predatory use of private information about its users probably ought not be allowed to continue with that model. It might mean they go bankrupt and get broken up. Somebody with a better business model will figure out how to do the good that Facebook did without the harm.

So, in my opinion, we should first tightly regulate how private information is used. When companies repeatedly violate user privacy, break them the fuck up. For example, when I'm signing up for goddamn online access to my own bank account, the bank makes me sign a statement that I read and accept THEIR privacy policy. Nobody should be forced to give up their rights to privacy in exchange for using the internet. Facebook is making billions from selling access to people and their information through their coerced permission. I think that ought to end and if Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google, Comcast, Wells Fargo or General Motors, even fucking Safeway can't find a way to stay in business without putting their thumbs up the asses of their users then let them die.

Edit: Same goes with ads. We are used to broadcast ads. Ads are basically a form of lying and we all know it. What Facebook allows advertisers to do is take private information and manipulate the message for that user. Trump is paying for targeted ads. If he wants to blast the internet with ads then he can do so. It's the ability to slice and dice user information to get the most bang for the buck from those ads that is insidious. I think all that will stop once we put up strong privacy protections on the companies that use the internet.
 
Last edited:
dandyrandy said:
Actually I know many people who have retired at 62. They worked for one of the fortune 500 companies with a pension. P&G GE, AT&T etc. But manufacturing and other companies have used automation and technology to employ less people. I have a relative who used to be a switchboard operator for at&t who is retired. So with less pensions now and most depending on interest which is terrible or take your chances with the market. But with low wages and housing, medical, etc. being so expensive I see a much worse future even for my kids. Medicare will be gone at the present rate of growth.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that retirement has become unreachable for many. Many more are at risk of becoming penniless before they die even if they do work as long as they can. Unless something changes, we can expect the trend to worsen. This is one reason why Social Democracy is attracting followers.
 
Fogdog said:
When my family started using facebook, I took a look at the information I had to give them in order to join, I listened to what Zuckerberg had to say about privacy, I looked at their business model and said "no thanks". That organization might not be corrupt but only because they had no moral standing from the beginning. When a service is free to the user then the user is the product that is sold to financial interests. No way was I going to let them into my life. But, then again, I'm a minority in this country. Facebook has done a lot to build community and keep families in touch with one another. So I see some good in them, but only good from how people use them. The company itself is not good.

The propaganda and fake news ads that inundate social media are an outcome of the business model they use. Facebook is one egregious example of this. The company itself has the personality of a psychopath. They charm and say the right things like the best of liars and then take what they want without concern about right and wrong and who gets hurt or how much harm they do to the US. They even cast the people they harmed as the ones at fault, not themselves. In a way, we should expect all companies to behave like this. At its core, capitalism has no ethics. So, we should not listen to their complaints when we regulate them if their products cause harm.

Companies like Facebook whose business models depend on predatory use of private information about its users probably ought not be allowed to continue with that model. It might mean they go bankrupt and get broken up. Somebody with a better business model will figure out how to do the good that Facebook did without the harm.

So, in my opinion, we should first tightly regulate how private information is used. When companies repeatedly violate user privacy, break them the fuck up. For example, when I'm signing up for goddamn online access to my own bank account, the bank makes me sign a statement that I read and accept THEIR privacy policy. Nobody should be forced to give up their rights to privacy in exchange for using the internet. Facebook is making billions from selling access to people and their information through their coerced permission. I think that ought to end and if Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google, Comcast, Wells Fargo or General Motors, even fucking Safeway can't find a way to stay in business without putting their thumbs up the asses of their users then let them die.
Click to expand...
you are a gem, dude. thank you for the insight.
 
Fogdog said:
what do you think? Break em up?
Click to expand...
maybe that's where we need to go from here, idk.

FB recently PARTNERED WITH THE DAILY CALLER, Tucker Carlson's far-right outlet with a history of fabrications to do "fact checking".

what liberal members of the media has Zuckerberg met with in the last four years? -- i cant find a single example of this happening

www.politico.com

Inside Mark Zuckerberg's private meetings with conservative pundits

The lengthy, off-the-record gatherings were held at one of the Facebook founder’s homes in California. They come as the social-media giant fends off accusations of liberal bias.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
scumrot derelict said:
maybe that's where we need to go from here, idk.

FB recently PARTNERED WITH THE DAILY CALLER, Tucker Carlson's far-right outlet with a history of fabrications to do "fact checking".

what liberal members of the media has Zuckerberg met with in the last four years? -- i cant find a single example of this happening

www.politico.com

Inside Mark Zuckerberg's private meetings with conservative pundits

The lengthy, off-the-record gatherings were held at one of the Facebook founder’s homes in California. They come as the social-media giant fends off accusations of liberal bias.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...
We an expect Zuckerberg to fight this with all his billions. He is not our friend. Neither are those conservatives he's meeting with. It's only natural that they will join together to suppress our rights to benefit themselves. What I will never understand is why your average Trumptards defends these people.
 
Fogdog said:
I don't see poverty as a moral issue. I see it as a lack of opportunity and support for those who weren't born with a gold spoon in their mouth. Let the best and brightest rise to the top. Right now, we have the lowest social mobility since the 1920,s. You cannot tell me Matt Kavanaugh was the best and brightest. He got there by being smart but not exceptional and born into great wealth and grew up among the power-elites who coddle douchebags like him because he's one of them. For very practical reasons, we need to re-balance the distribution of wealth so that those with ability but not economic adn social status can compete with those who did nothing to gain wealth and privilege.

Regarding relying on charities to bring equal opportunity to everybody: that hasn't ever been adequate.

Note that I'm not banging on the heads of productive wealthy people, just the legions of them who are really just average but were born with a huge advantage while people who have higher potential are stifled due to the situations they were born into. To me, people should earn the right to higher education and not just have it handed to them. But the means to pay for it shouldn't be one of the obstacles.

We have let things get run down in this country too. We aren't investing in infrastructure. We need to address the sources of human caused climate change and improve our environment. These are investments, not expenses and everybody benefits, including future generations.

Do you think this system is working so well that the status quo is the best answer? If not then it has to be paid for. People who benefit the most from living here can afford to pay the most for the privilege.
Click to expand...
you immediately bring social issues into this. all i'm talking about is someones ability to make money. why do you want to penalize people for doing something they're good at?
some people are artist, some people are farmers, some are craftspeople...some people make money. as long as they're paying their fair share of taxes, why should i give a fuck how much money someone can make? or what they do with it?
people who make money can be evil pieces of shit, but they can also be the owners of businesses that employ many people, that provide needed consumer products. some of them practice philanthropy....not everyone with money is an evil fuck. not everyone who has no money is a noble good person being held down by "the man".....some of them are useless worthless lazy pieces of shit. why should people willing to get off their asses and earn money give it to worthless lazy pieces of shit?

i fully agree that we have to start improving the infrastructure of the country...wealthy people can do so by paying their taxes, and not trying to avoid their fair share of the burden. i have no problem with people who have the ability to make money. the people i have a problem with are the ones who actively try to avoid paying their fair share. the politicians who enable them to do so. the lawyers who asist them in hiding the money they should be paying taxes on. the accountants who hide it for them. all of them should be held to account, and retroactive payments for every penny avoided should be squeezed out of them, whether it ruins them or not. any lawyers or accountants who are convicted of helping are permanently barred from ever practicing again.
making money isn't a crime, it's a talent. what you do with it after you make it can be a crime.
 
Fogdog said:
A future where retirement means work until you drop?

" Looming on the horizon, however, is a complete dismantling of this safety net. "

That's what many of the 1% want us to think. It is true that the end of the baby boom means our societies can't continue on in the way it has. And so, we need to think about doing things differently. That said, the article was written for a small group in the upper middle class who are looking at a dismal life after retirement. Welcome to the masses who were already there. The so-called safety net in this country was never plush enough to retire in wealth after a lifetime of working lower income.

Usually the Guardian is more responsible about purging propaganda from their opinion pieces but this one slipped through:

"They grew up assuming they could expect the kind of retirement their parents enjoyed – stopping work in their mid-60s on a generous income, with time and good health enough to fulfil long-held dreams. "

For much more than half of the people in this country who are 60 and older, this was never the case. The median income in this country is $35,000 per year. A large majority in this country do not move out of the social-economic group they were born into. Known as social mobility, less than 10% of the people in this country move up or down the social ladder. About 90% stay where they are. I don't see how a parent who is making $35,000 or even $50,000 per year and maintains themselves and their children at a moderate standard of living can save enough to retire rich. I just don't.

After a lifetime of productive, hard work while raising kids who contribute to the future economic and social health of this society is it too much to expect society to prevent extreme poverty among the elderly? I don't see that as a just system. I just don't.
Click to expand...
why should anyone expect to retire rich? you don't get "rich" as a reward for living long enough.
there should be a social safety net, and the elderly who can't care for themselves should receive some help...but how much? does getting old turn you back into a baby, who the rest of the world is expected to take care of? you've had your entire life to prepare for old age...some people have never had the opportunity to prepare, and some have and have pissed it all away. i'm not particularly fond of the idea of taking care of a bunch of useless old fucks who were useless young fucks.....
i don't qualify for social security for another 13 years, and i probably won't take it then...if it still exists. i'll wait another few years to get more out of it. but i won't need it. i've worked my whole life. i've never been close to rich, but i've payed my own bills, and will till i drop dead.
you have good points, and i'm not discounting what you're saying, a lot of people have never had the chance to prepare, and they should have. the society is broken, and needs to be fixed. we just differ in what we think is broken, and how it needs to be fixed
 
Fogdog said:
When my family started using facebook, I took a look at the information I had to give them in order to join, I listened to what Zuckerberg had to say about privacy, I looked at their business model and said "no thanks". That organization might not be corrupt but only because they had no moral standing from the beginning. When a service is free to the user then the user is the product that is sold to financial interests. No way was I going to let them into my life. But, then again, I'm a minority in this country. Facebook has done a lot to build community and keep families in touch with one another. So I see some good in them, but only good from how people use them. The company itself is not good.

The propaganda and fake news ads that inundate social media are an outcome of the business model they use. Facebook is one egregious example of this. The company itself has the personality of a psychopath. They charm and say the right things like the best of liars and then take what they want without concern about right and wrong and who gets hurt or how much harm they do to the US. They even cast the people they harmed as the ones at fault, not themselves. In a way, we should expect all companies to behave like this. At its core, capitalism has no ethics. So, we should not listen to their complaints when we regulate them if their products cause harm.

Companies like Facebook whose business models depend on predatory use of private information about its users probably ought not be allowed to continue with that model. It might mean they go bankrupt and get broken up. Somebody with a better business model will figure out how to do the good that Facebook did without the harm.

So, in my opinion, we should first tightly regulate how private information is used. When companies repeatedly violate user privacy, break them the fuck up. For example, when I'm signing up for goddamn online access to my own bank account, the bank makes me sign a statement that I read and accept THEIR privacy policy. Nobody should be forced to give up their rights to privacy in exchange for using the internet. Facebook is making billions from selling access to people and their information through their coerced permission. I think that ought to end and if Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google, Comcast, Wells Fargo or General Motors, even fucking Safeway can't find a way to stay in business without putting their thumbs up the asses of their users then let them die.

Edit: Same goes with ads. We are used to broadcast ads. Ads are basically a form of lying and we all know it. What Facebook allows advertisers to do is take private information and manipulate the message for that user. Trump is paying for targeted ads. If he wants to blast the internet with ads then he can do so. It's the ability to slice and dice user information to get the most bang for the buck from those ads that is insidious. I think all that will stop once we put up strong privacy protections on the companies that use the internet.
Click to expand...
this is the first post you've ever made that i agree with entirely....i've said exactly the same thing for years....if just using someones product entitles them to access and share every aspect of my life, then fuck them and their product. i go so far as to turn my phone off and put it in my desk drawer. i didn't think they would "bug" me, but i started noticing that every time i started the browser on my phone, it would be showing me things i had been talking about while i had it turned on in my pocket....things i had never searched for before....i went into the root on my computer and disabled cortanna....i can see a violent uprising over this, and i would be happy to join into this pogram....a little butlerian jihad action in facebooks server center would be deeply satisfying. sort my information out of your crushed server racks.....
we really need to go after the "clearing houses" that buy and sell this information...they need to be shut the fuck down...with axes, hammers, and fire
 
dandyrandy said:
I agree but that won't quite do it. The system needs cheap labor and resources.
Click to expand...
I think it is more the system of humanity means there is always new people starting out, and since they have the least experience/time (on a level playing field) starting out they are relatively (to people who have more time/experience/skills) 'cheap' labor. And if a resource is 'cheap' someone will figure it out and start supplying it to people who want to buy it.

Fogdog said:
why?
Click to expand...
Because people just starting out are more willing to seek out lower paying jobs that allow them to make some money on a short term basis to pay rent/ get food and what not. So there is always a constant supply. And a constant supply of people looking to spend as little as possible to get something done.

Roger A. Shrubber said:
how about we deal with some of this undeserved sense of entitlement that is so prevalent recently? how about we grind it into the losers living in their parents basements, attics and garages, that they are fucking failures who need to get the fuck off their asses and get jobs, and feed themselves?
i don't see the problem with the acquisition of wealth...if you have the desire and the willingness to work for it, you deserve what you get.
Click to expand...
I would be curious if looking back the people that used to be 'drunks' are about the same proportion as those living off others today minus being alcoholics if you figure in people who have issues dealing in society too. Because I really don't know anyone who hasn't had to work at least a little to survive in this world.
 
Roger A. Shrubber said:
you immediately bring social issues into this. all i'm talking about is someones ability to make money. why do you want to penalize people for doing something they're good at?
some people are artist, some people are farmers, some are craftspeople...some people make money. as long as they're paying their fair share of taxes, why should i give a fuck how much money someone can make? or what they do with it?
people who make money can be evil pieces of shit, but they can also be the owners of businesses that employ many people, that provide needed consumer products. some of them practice philanthropy....not everyone with money is an evil fuck. not everyone who has no money is a noble good person being held down by "the man".....some of them are useless worthless lazy pieces of shit. why should people willing to get off their asses and earn money give it to worthless lazy pieces of shit?

i fully agree that we have to start improving the infrastructure of the country...wealthy people can do so by paying their taxes, and not trying to avoid their fair share of the burden. i have no problem with people who have the ability to make money. the people i have a problem with are the ones who actively try to avoid paying their fair share. the politicians who enable them to do so. the lawyers who asist them in hiding the money they should be paying taxes on. the accountants who hide it for them. all of them should be held to account, and retroactive payments for every penny avoided should be squeezed out of them, whether it ruins them or not. any lawyers or accountants who are convicted of helping are permanently barred from ever practicing again.
making money isn't a crime, it's a talent. what you do with it after you make it can be a crime.
Click to expand...
paying taxes is not a penalty.

In any case, i never said "soak the working classes"
Roger A. Shrubber said:
why should anyone expect to retire rich? you don't get "rich" as a reward for living long enough.
there should be a social safety net, and the elderly who can't care for themselves should receive some help...but how much? does getting old turn you back into a baby, who the rest of the world is expected to take care of? you've had your entire life to prepare for old age...some people have never had the opportunity to prepare, and some have and have pissed it all away. i'm not particularly fond of the idea of taking care of a bunch of useless old fucks who were useless young fucks.....
i don't qualify for social security for another 13 years, and i probably won't take it then...if it still exists. i'll wait another few years to get more out of it. but i won't need it. i've worked my whole life. i've never been close to rich, but i've payed my own bills, and will till i drop dead.
you have good points, and i'm not discounting what you're saying, a lot of people have never had the chance to prepare, and they should have. the society is broken, and needs to be fixed. we just differ in what we think is broken, and how it needs to be fixed
Click to expand...
I don't think you raised kids, Roger. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

$230,000 to raise a kid to adult-hood not including college tuition and expenses of pregnancy and childbirth. Half a million for two. Subtract that from your savings. Would you still enough to retire and not need Medicare and social security? If so, then you have done well.

Median family income is $55,000 per year. That's both adults working. So, add in child care to the bills on top of food, etc to sustain a two adult /two children household. Median single person income is $35,000. What median means is "half make more and half make less. So, half of all households make less than $55k/yr. Is it your position that everybody in this country including those who make less than 35,000/yr are morally bankrupt if they reach the age of and don't have at least $400,000 socked away?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HandyGringo
Europeans, what do you use for pest control in veg and flower?
Replies
2
Views
410
cabezapayo
C
VIVOSUN Official
✨A Big Surprise Awaits You. Just Click！！！✨
Replies
4
Views
811
VIVOSUN Official
VIVOSUN Official
Jimdamick
Russia & China align
2 3
Replies
49
Views
3K
Friendly_Grower
Friendly_Grower
Phlizon LED Grow Light
Phlizon Grow Light Factory Welcome OEM/ODM Inquiry!
Replies
1
Views
537
coreywebster
coreywebster
Phlizon LED Grow Light
Phlizon Grow Light Factory Welcomes OEM/ODM Inquiry!
Replies
0
Views
402
Phlizon LED Grow Light
Phlizon LED Grow Light
Back
Top