"The Pitchforks are coming for us Plutocrats"

Some people are trying to live on a newsroom salary.

 

So we're supposed to give huge increases to people you admit can't do something more valuable than cook fries?

 

If somebody is working 40 hours per week, I think it would be nice if they didn't need food stamps to make ends meet.

 

Oh well, fuck 'em.

 

It would be nice if money grew on trees.

 

Or maybe they fucked themselves. Blowing off an education does have consequences. Are you saying it shouldn't?

 

Oh, Tony, you elitist fucking buffoon.
Everyone deserves a shot at prosperity in America.

As it is, though, the deck is stacked for all the wrong reasons.

 

I can tell you what the author is saying, and I agree: If enough people say out loud what you wrote enough times, there's a set of consequences for that, too.

We keep blowing off the possibility of real tension, real violence, and I'm not sure why. Naivete, I suppose.

The smart play -- for rich folks -- is to slow down the money train a bit. It really is. If middle-class conservatives such as yourself weren't still fueled by the phony outrage that the conservative media gins up, it'd be easier to see, too.

I honestly think most truly wealthy people wouldn't give a shit -- it's a percentage point to them -- if the conservative middle class didn't <i>insist</i> on them giving a shit.

 

Can't resist the temptation ...

Company X hires two people, A and B. Both A and B are equally productive and produce about $10 an hour's worth of value, so that's what each is paid. We'll assume that this is the best offer on the table for either of them.

A is just out of high school and lives with her parents (she has no dependents). B is married, and he and his wife have two children.

Question: Assuming that A is not on food stamps but B is, is B's resentment of A's greater compensation justified?

 

You said they're being compensated equally -- $10/hr.

 

Much too vague a scenario that then presumes an emotion (resentment) that's apparently so universal it needs no specifics.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe DQ was pointing out that "being on food stamps" is driven as much by some of the choices we make as it is the salary we make.

If you've made the choice to get married and have kids and live in a hip place . . . well, that salary likely is not going to be enough to get by on without food stamps. You can't just blame "the company" for putting you in that position.

If DQ meant something else entirely, then I assume he'll correct me and explain his position a little better.