Sympathy for the Devil

Yeah, I understand that...but it's hard for me to reconcile that with the fact that the group discussing this (us) is a group rich enough not only to afford video games, but also rich enough to afford the means and time to discuss video games with each other.

In other words, we as a community have more in common with Schiff than with a malnourished Zambian family reliant on mosquito nets and habitat for humanity for safe shelter. I can understand the concern of being one repair bill away from losing my second car more than I can understand the fear that my retroviral supply might be taken by religious fundamentalists or my sister might be sold into the Taliban sex traficking ring. And being one repair bill away from losing my second car sounds a lot like defaulting on a boat payment.

So I can see his concern, even if it's lightyears beyond the concerns of subsistence. This is a privilege of being born the lucky skin color in the right country, of course, but I'm in no rush to identify with subsistence, either.

LarryC wrote:

Luxuries rise with income. Necessities do not.

Isn't there something in between those two things? Like the labor movement refrain goes "hearts starve as well as bodies/give us bread, but give us roses!" What does a belief like that mean in terms of what a social safety net should look like?

What it really comes down to, is that your basic responsibilities are to keep yourself and your family healthy, educated, and productive. That's it. Anything beyond that is a luxury, regardless of how it may seem. It may seem like it's your fatherly responsibility to make sure that your kid has a Christmas Tree and gifts from Santa Claus, but really, it's not. Those are luxuries, even excesses, that many people in the world cannot possibly afford. Your responsibility is to make sure he doesn't starve to death and doesn't freeze to death.

I disagree. I think one has a responsibility to ensure your kid has some kind of satisfying life. Doesn't mean you have to purchase it outright, but it does mean you have to at least make sure they have the tools to psychologically flourish. I think a lot depends on the culture you're bringing your kid into.

I mean, if all you can do is make sure your kid doesn't starve or freeze to death, why should a person be having kids in the first place? Aren't kids themselves a luxury as opposed to a necessity in many situations?

Or again: is the luxury/necessity dichotomy too extreme to capture the way things really are? Do these 'banksters' get blamed only for the people who wound up in poverty? I don't think they do: I think they also get blamed for knocking people out of the middle class and into the lower--but not impoverished--class.

Bankers are also responsible for underwriting the lion's share of small business growth. When I worked in sales, I had dozens of commercial and middle market clients who now enjoyed a wealth management relationship because the bank loan we gave them either helped their business flourish or saved it during the 2008-2009 crash.

LarryC wrote:

I disagree with that on a fundamental level, and I think a lot of the people who take issue with rich guys whining like this do, too. Don't get me wrong, I can see why he's worried and how that might come to be. I just think it's because he lacks perspective and has overentitlement issues.

I guess I'm still missing the jump from this article to entitlement from people like Schiff. I'm sure there are certainly people who have entitlement issues (because I am not a crazy person), but I think we're taking this article and using it to paint a very, very broad brush here. Let me say a couple things -

1) This "screw those guys" attitude is general outrage at anyone near or around financially related jobs that makes good money. I think the list of people who are reasonably responsible for the economic meltdown and the people who work in these jobs are not the same, though there is a great deal of overlap.

2) There might be a fair number of people who worked hard, worked relatively fairly (emphasis on the word relatively here, sure) but got screwed, too. I don't see anything at all wrong with expressing frustration and disappointment. There are people who had their investments and retirement funds hurt but not crippled by all of this. Should we roll our eyes and sternly "inform" them that their world will still go on when they say how much this sucks?

Bloo Driver wrote:

Should we roll our eyes and sternly "inform" them that their world will still go on when they say how much this sucks?

Most of us in this position know better than to complain to a reporter that our 401ks aren't growing fast enough.

Funkenpants wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Should we roll our eyes and sternly "inform" them that their world will still go on when they say how much this sucks?

Most of us in this position know better than to complain to a reporter that our 401ks aren't growing fast enough.

You might think that, but there were so many interest piece articles about people losing money and growth in these investments and people complaining about it were deemed as victims. So in reality, I think it's definitely a perception problem, just not the one Larry pointed out.

Farscry wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

But yeah, f*ck that guy.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

I am not being sarcastic. I believe he's sincere but he's still having the sorts of problems I would love to have.

I have no problem with the guy making $350k and being stressed out by finances in the original article, as long as he isn't: a) suggesting that poor people have it easier because they don't have all that money to worry about, b) suggesting that his problems (can't afford X houses, X cars, and private school) are the same as the financial problems of a poor family, or c) supporting policies that reduce the support available to poor families.

I do not, however, see any need to enact policies to make his financial problems easier to deal with, while I do see a need to enact policies to help those who are barely making ends meet.

Someone with a family who makes that kind of money and has financial problems can easily give up some things and be fine—unless they've dramatically screwed up financially (in which case they should have known better). It's sad that they're stressed, but they can deal with it. There's no need for society to make an effort to help him or his family get things sorted—he can probably afford to hire someone to help get his finances in order, even if he *is* having cashflow problems. If he can't sort things out himself, it's worth it.

Someone with a family who makes a tenth of what he does and has financial problems has nothing they can give up, and is probably already receiving public assistance for food. Society has a compelling motivation to make an effort to help him and his family get things sorted, so that the children are in a better position to do good things when they're adults, so that they're not pushed towards a life of crime, etc.

In short: My sister's family is eating government cheese, has no education option for the kids other than "hope that the public schools in the areas we can afford to live aren't too crappy", and has to ask me for cash to help when there's a car problem with their one vehicle. I have little pity to feel for someone like Schiff. On the list of "people who need my help to live a good life", people like him are pretty damned close to the bottom.

Maybe we should give him a big tax cut to help ease his pain?

Seth:

Yeah, I understand that...but it's hard for me to reconcile that with the fact that the group discussing this (us) is a group rich enough not only to afford video games, but also rich enough to afford the means and time to discuss video games with each other.

Like you, I used to be poorer. Unlike you, I was not fortunate enough to be born in a rich country. I had the misfortune of being born to one of 6 children of a single mother in the Philippine's urban poor. I used to hawk cupcakes in the market as a child so we could have food on the table, and I considered myself lucky, cause my friends in the neighborhood often didn't have parents who were as resourceful and industrious as mine.

I'm rich enough now to afford video games and the free time to discuss them, but I remember what it used to be like for us when we were poorer, and I can imagine and see what's it's like for people who continue to be less fortunate than we were at our poorest, even when we were penniless and one meal away from starving.

In general, I do sense that this community has more in common with Schiff than with me.

CheezePavilion:

Isn't there something in between those two things? Like the labor movement refrain goes "hearts starve as well as bodies/give us bread, but give us roses!" What does a belief like that mean in terms of what a social safety net should look like?

When we were bored, we entertained ourselves by playing with our hands and feet. It's surprisingly entertaining, and costs nothing. If nothing else, you can always run.

Of course, there is something to be said about the value of education. My parents often rated it above food. I did, myself, and continue to do so. I'd skip meals to buy books.

I mean, if all you can do is make sure your kid doesn't starve or freeze to death, why should a person be having kids in the first place? Aren't kids themselves a luxury as opposed to a necessity in many situations?

Your nation is so rich that it probably seems that way to you. Where I live, kids are your only means of real support when you're old and can't work. They're more of a retirement plan and a succession plan rolled into one than a luxury. As a bachelor, I was expected to support my parents with a 30% slice of my net income, and I considered that generous. Some parents get everything, even when they can still work.

In your country, when you say "The children are the future," I imagine that you take that to mean metaphorically, or in some abstract sense; that you have to care for them "to make a better world," or some altruistic touchy-feely nonsense of the sort. To us, its meaning is immediate and practical. If you have no kids, you have no future - no future care, no future income, no legacy, no nothing. You're literally one bad cut away from a painful, lingering death and oblivion.

Ironically, I probably don't have as much of a "screw you," attitude towards Schiff since he lives far away and nothing he personally does impacts me as much as the depredations of the local warlord.

Hypatian wrote:

Someone with a family who makes that kind of money and has financial problems can easily give up some things and be fine—unless they've dramatically screwed up financially (in which case they should have known better).

There's a certain irony in someone complaining that they screwed up financially because they're not making enough money working in...finance. : D

In short: My sister's family is eating government cheese, has no education option for the kids other than "hope that the public schools in the areas we can afford to live aren't too crappy", and has to ask me for cash to help when there's a car problem with their one vehicle. I have little pity to feel for someone like Schiff. On the list of "people who need my help to live a good life", people like him are pretty damned close to the bottom.

Maybe there's two different ideas of what "pity" or "sympathy" is floating around: one is the type you're talking about here, people we need to "make an effort to help him or his family get things sorted"; the other is what you say earlier, "I have no problem with the guy making $350k and being stressed out by finances." When I (and I assume others) say sympathy/pity, I'm talking about the latter, with the same three conditions, where you can feel for a person's emotional turmoil but not think it requires the rest of us to spend money fixing their problems.

LarryC wrote:
Isn't there something in between those two things? Like the labor movement refrain goes "hearts starve as well as bodies/give us bread, but give us roses!" What does a belief like that mean in terms of what a social safety net should look like?

When we were bored, we entertained ourselves by playing with our hands and feet. It's surprisingly entertaining, and costs nothing. If nothing else, you can always run.

I don't get your point.

I mean, if all you can do is make sure your kid doesn't starve or freeze to death, why should a person be having kids in the first place? Aren't kids themselves a luxury as opposed to a necessity in many situations?

Your nation is so rich that it probably seems that way to you. Where I live, kids are your only means of real support when you're old and can't work. They're more of a retirement plan and a succession plan rolled into one than a luxury.

No LarryC, it doesn't seem that way to me. Why do you think I said "in many situations?" It may seem that way to you because you don't understand my nation is not rich. My nation consists of rich and poor. You say:

As a bachelor, I was expected to support my parents with a 30% slice of my net income, and I considered that generous. Some parents get everything, even when they can still work.

In your country, when you say "The children are the future," I imagine that you take that to mean metaphorically, or in some abstract sense; that you have to care for them "to make a better world," or some altruistic touchy-feely nonsense of the sort. To us, its meaning is immediate and practical. If you have no kids, you have no future - no future care, no future income, no legacy, no nothing. You're literally one bad cut away from a painful, lingering death and oblivion.

You should go read something like this before assuming such things about another person's country.

CheezePavilion:

I don't get your point.

It is unnecessary for parents to find things for their children to play with, since children will play with anything and find it fun so long as they're discovering something. It's often more of a concern to keep them from playing with dangerous objects like broken glass, burning tires, or biowaste.

You should go read something like this before assuming such things about another person's country.

I assumed that your country was rich because you clearly didn't consider it necessary to have children in order to survive much past your 5th decade of life. For us, children are a necessity so as to continue to have a means of eating food once you can no longer work.

Larry, keep in mind that economically, America has always had a significant divide between the financially secure minority and the financially shaky majority. So when you say "your country" with such broad terms, you make it sound like all Americans are in the same boat in the general sense. It's not been that way for awhile, and the delta between the rich and poor is increasing at an exponential rate now. There certainly are Americans who don't have to worry for things like you mention, but that's not a generalization I would throw at America as a country.

I would also like to say that generalizing everyone who works at a financial firm as cold, entitled snobs that directly led to the ruining of the American economy is unwarranted as well.

LarryC wrote:

It is unnecessary for parents to find things for their children to play with, since children will play with anything and find it fun so long as they're discovering something. It's often more of a concern to keep them from playing with dangerous objects like broken glass, burning tires, or biowaste.

That's not relevant to the question of whether something fun to play with is a necessity or a luxury, or what parents are required to provide. The question is whether the kid's needs are getting met, not who exactly is providing them.

You should go read something like this before assuming such things about another person's country.

I assumed that your country was rich because you clearly didn't consider it necessary to have children in order to survive much past your 5th decade of life. For us, children are a necessity so as to continue to have a means of eating food once you can no longer work.

I don't clearly consider it unnecessary to have children. I said: "Aren't kids themselves a luxury as opposed to a necessity in many situations?"

CheezePavilion:

That's not relevant to the question of whether something fun to play with is a necessity or a luxury, or what parents are required to provide. The question is whether the kid's needs are getting met, not who exactly is providing them.

The content you're referring to is talking about parent responsibility. That seems to me to make it a central point as to what parents are required to provide, and who is providing the needs of the children. Granted, your comment on my content may be trying to make an entirely tangential point - I'm a little lost on what your point is and how it's relevant to what I said.

I don't clearly consider it unnecessary to have children. I said: "Aren't kids themselves a luxury as opposed to a necessity in many situations?"

I confess that it is almost entirely a necessity to have children in most walks of life in my country. They are source of future income for the poor, and secure repositories of power and wealth for the rich. I'm not conversant with many situations in which children would be a luxury.

Bloo Driver:

I was not implying that. Bear in mind that I am not an American, nor even a Westerner. My concept of what is rich is... ...less that what the majority of the community here think, and that is my perspective in commenting on Schiff. In America, when you have no income, your family gets by without any luxuries and no future, limited education, limited opportunities for advancement. Where I live, if you family really, really has no income, you all die.

I consider your country rich because your poor people don't have to eat literal garbage in order to not simply starve to death. CheezePavilion here is talking about a social safety net. My country nominally has one, but in practical terms, there isn't any. If you fall down far enough from the poverty line, you simply die.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

That's not relevant to the question of whether something fun to play with is a necessity or a luxury, or what parents are required to provide. The question is whether the kid's needs are getting met, not who exactly is providing them.

The content you're referring to is talking about parent responsibility. That seems to me to make it a central point as to what parents are required to provide,

No, parental responsibility is about what parents are required to make sure is provided: if parents can get it for free or from another source, they're off the hook.

I don't clearly consider it unnecessary to have children. I said: "Aren't kids themselves a luxury as opposed to a necessity in many situations?"

I confess that it is almost entirely a necessity to have children in most walks of life in my country. They are source of future income for the poor, and secure repositories of power and wealth for the rich. I'm not conversant with many situations in which children would be a luxury.

How is making sure one has a secure repository of power and wealth a necessity?

CheezePavilion:

No, parental responsibility is about what parents are required to make sure is provided: if parents can get it for free or from another source, they're off the hook.

I failed my Language (English) check.

How is making sure one has a secure repository of power and wealth a necessity?

The rich and the powerful usually have deadly enemies, usually other rich and powerful folk. If you get old and die prematurely without passing on your power and wealth, your spouse and/or siblings may shortly follow you. In some cases, having children may be necessary in order to acquire additional power and wealth so as not to be overpowered by a hostile faction.

Of course, the most common need is for normal succession planning. If your business/power interests require constant supervision and your failing health and/or vitality is limiting your ability to keep up, well, you may not survive that.

LarryC wrote:

I consider your country rich because your poor people don't have to eat literal garbage in order to not simply starve to death. CheezePavilion here is talking about a social safety net. My country nominally has one, but in practical terms, there isn't any. If you fall down far enough from the poverty line, you simply die.

I don't know the actual statistics on it, but there are poor in America who have to deal with just that reality, LarryC. It's likely less common than elsewhere in the world (such as in your nation), but it certainly happens here.

Farscry wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I consider your country rich because your poor people don't have to eat literal garbage in order to not simply starve to death. CheezePavilion here is talking about a social safety net. My country nominally has one, but in practical terms, there isn't any. If you fall down far enough from the poverty line, you simply die.

I don't know the actual statistics on it, but there are poor in America who have to deal with just that reality, LarryC. It's likely less common than elsewhere in the world (such as in your nation), but it certainly happens here.

It's less about the statistics of a given event and more about having a functional social safety net. That said, I mean, I know my culture is all weird and interesting and sh*t, but isn't this thread about Schiff and Co?

LarryC wrote:
Farscry wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I consider your country rich because your poor people don't have to eat literal garbage in order to not simply starve to death. CheezePavilion here is talking about a social safety net. My country nominally has one, but in practical terms, there isn't any. If you fall down far enough from the poverty line, you simply die.

I don't know the actual statistics on it, but there are poor in America who have to deal with just that reality, LarryC. It's likely less common than elsewhere in the world (such as in your nation), but it certainly happens here.

It's less about the statistics of a given event and more about having a functional social safety net. That said, I mean, I know my culture is all weird and interesting and sh*t, but isn't this thread about Schiff and Co?

Well, one - I think you're the one who brought this up. So I dunno why you're suddenly trying this tactic.

And, two - it's actually germane to the discussion about where that line is between what's necessary and what's luxury. Which I think is where you decided to "reveal" to us how good we have it.

Bloo Driver:

I'm not trying any tactic. I'm just concerned that yet another thread is going to turn into the LarryC Show, and there's well enough threads like that around for my taste. That LarryC guy can sound like a dick, you know?

On the topic of luxuries and necessities, I made the offhand comment that your country was rich. That's not to say that everyone American can afford a jetliner. It's more of you have some form of free medical aid and other such social safety nets. This means that some things that are luxuries for you are necessities for us.

My basic point remains that rising income does not necessitate rising costs of necessities - those are constant, and generally things that most Americans can afford, unless dying of starvation or population wide malnutrition from poverty is something that's common there now (could be, it'd be news to me, though).

LarryC wrote:

Bloo Driver:

I'm not trying any tactic. I'm just concerned that yet another thread is going to turn into the LarryC Show, and there's well enough threads like that around for my taste. That LarryC guy can sound like a dick, you know?

As long as Seth keeps posting, I think you're safe.

On the topic of luxuries and necessities, I made the offhand comment that your country was rich. That's not to say that everyone American can afford a jetliner. It's more of you have some form of free medical aid and other such social safety nets. This means that some things that are luxuries for you are necessities for us.

I think you meant this backwards - that what we deem "necessities" your country would more likely see as luxuries?

My basic point remains that rising income does not necessitate rising costs of necessities - those are constant, and generally things that most Americans can afford, unless dying of starvation or population wide malnutrition from poverty is something that's common there now (could be, it'd be news to me, though).

I wouldn't say it's "common". People like to repeat the line that the middle class is dying, which feels true, but the people on the losing side of the divide are still relatively better off than folks in many other countries. However, we are seeing an extremely swift change in this country, socioeconomically speaking. The number of people in the literal life-or-death financial situations is rising.

What is considered "necessity" isn't really a flat line across all cultures, though. As an example (a poor one, but one that hopefully illustrates the point) - a car is a NEED for many people who live in areas where walking and biking around is just not an option to get to things like a grocery store or a job. In countries where there's much greater population huddle, not having a car is hardly a hurdle to anything.

Bringing this back to a comment I made earlier - that even responsible (not necessarily mandatory) spending can increase with income - I think that still holds true. And that's what makes me take a step back a bit when people whip out the pitchforks and torches about these guys at the mere mention of them being upset and worried about their finances.

Bloo Driver wrote:

As long as Seth keeps posting, I think you're safe.

Sticks and stones! I chuckle to think of the double entendre that wouldn't have escaped you as you wrote that.

Now I must get back to my money bin made of indian children's tears.

Ok, maybe I was a bit harsh on the banking industry but I still see that industry as essentially tanking the economy and then letting everyone else take the hit for them. It doesn't help when I read blogs where investment bankers brag about how their trips to Vegas cost more than the average working stiff has saved for retirement. Or listen to NPR interview hedge fund managers laugh at taxpayers for being suckers. Maybe that's unfair, but hey I work my butt off in local government and haven't seen a raise in several years. My wife works in journalism and has seen her paycheck shrink by nearly 30 percent. Yet plenty of people still hate us and we don't make all that much money. So I feel a little entitled to give poor Mr six figures a little grief.

As far as the Phillipines discussion goes, isn't a big problem with that country is how the economy is dominated by a small and utterly corrupt elite? Sound a little familiar? If you don't think that can't happen here, keep in mind there are quite a few powerful individuals who see letting the poor starve to death as a societal feature not a bug.

jdzappa wrote:

Ok, maybe I was a bit harsh on the banking industry but I still see that industry as essentially tanking the economy and then letting everyone else take the hit for them.

You weren't being harsh. Their "innovative financial products" were the primary cause of the economic meltdown. No "no income, nothing down mortgage" would ever be issued if someone didn't say "I'll pay for that" and that's what happened. Wall Street needed mortgages for their CDO's and every bank and mortgage broker responded.

People just tend to get angry at *any* obvious signs of wealth. Talking about your disdain for people who make ordinary livings is one obvious thing - and believe me, traders all think they are top predators, we need a stronger term than "egomaniac" for most of them, based on my personal experience - but I also read a review of a high-end luxury car written by a reporter who drove from his house to the dealership, and then right back. He was amazed at how poorly he was treated by other drivers when driving the fancy sports car than when he was driving his own ordinary sedan.

It's not the fact that they make all this money that's obnoxious to a lot of people; it's the ostentation and disdain for "ordinary people" exhibited by some of the rich that pisses others off. And it's very pervasive in society, and I suspect that we see the backlash in the wealthy seeking to isolate themselves, which is perhaps not the best thing for politicians to do (sort of a side effect, consider Romney's detached understanding of the world.) And we see this sort of divide all the way back in history, to Rome at least.

This gets to what a lot of people have been saying here.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things...