this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
853 points (98.6% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7299 readers
596 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Americans are too weak to demand what we deserve. Too complacent.

Worker productivity has skyrocketed over the last century, but we're still working the same 40+ hour work weeks. What's the point of advancing technology and increasing efficiency if our lives don't get easier/happier?

Healthcare is dogshit and we're all categorically getting ripped off by it.

We used to tax rich people appropriately in this country and, surprise surprise, the middle class was way stronger back then.

Now we're just pussies that let the useless mega-rich do whatever the fuck they want to us and idolize them for it.

We're a bunch of bitches is what we are. Too feeble and uneducated to bring about real change. Even voting against our own best interests because we can't be bothered to learn anything. We're honestly pathetic.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

they shaped their culture around anticommunism. you bet they will keep alienating their people further, and will hold off a revolution for as long as possible.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

I have always said that so long as McDonalds has a hot burger for a few bucks on every street corner, there will not be a revolution in the US.

Rather than starving to death, we have an obesity epidemic along with an opiate epidemic, which prevents the revolution from getting up off the couch.

Not trying to claim a conspiracy here, just the way things are.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, the gap between the wealthiest and everyone else literally does not matter at all, when it comes to 'motivation for revolution'.

The overall level/amount/condition of poverty is what matters. And let's be real, things are not nearly as bad in the US today as they were in France before the French Revolution. Not even close.

Fact is, if you magically bumped everyone up so that no one was making less than $75k a year, the wealth gap would be essentially identical to what it is now, because the gap between zero and 75k is nothing compared to the gap between 75k and hundreds of billions. But no one would be suffering in poverty, so would anyone care about the wealth gap, then? I seriously doubt it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Great point!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

McDonald's charging $10-20 for shit-tier burgers in some of the US: 👀👀

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

McDonald's is expensive now.

A double cheeseburger was a dollar a few years ago, sure. But it's almost that much for a single nugget these days.

A hash brown is 3.50 at the one by my office.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Looked it up:

McDonald's double cheeseburger hasn't been a dollar for over 15 years (started in 2002, and in 2008, the McDouble replaced it, which had one fewer slice of cheese). And the McDouble itself stopped being a dollar in 2013, over a decade ago. Bit more than "a few years ago"--I think Covid screwed up everyone's perception of time more than usual, lol.

That said, I get lunch at work several times a week at Wendy's and always pay less than $5, not too bad all things considered imo.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Wendy's is still a pretty good deal. A cup of chili and some nuggets ain't a bad price.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

It only takes about 3% of the population to push effective revolution. That's still over ten million people. We might be getting close.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Ahhh so the Wall-E form of public control.

I can see it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Just offer free food and specially free opiates if they start a revolution. There's many means to a end

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Conspiracies happen in secret. There's no hidden agenda, just the publicly-stated agenda.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Despite the current wealth inequality a good number of people are still living decently enough.

I'm waiting to see what happens when Trump starts putting his taxes in place. When people are miserable enough they'll take to the streets and protest. If we reach a breaking point where living conditions completely break down and there still aren't protests then it may as well be over for democracy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

America is a frog getting slowly heated in a pot of water. The only hope is to turn up the heat fast enough and high enough that the frog jumps out of the pot before it gets cooked

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

As if the US is currently a Democracy

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Never has been

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Despite the current wealth inequality

It's not "despite" the gap, because the gap itself does not cause poverty. If the poorest person in the US made $75k/year (in other words, poverty completely eradicated), the size of the gap would still be pretty much exactly the same (after all, the difference between zero and 75k is nothing compared to the difference between 75k and hundreds of billions, which is the current net worth of those with the most wealth).

After all, 50 years ago, the gap was significantly smaller, but the overall incidence of poverty was much higher.

Someone's always going to have the most. And new wealth is constantly being created. And net worth is a valuation, a price tag, not an amount of cash (which is the primary reason it can go up as fast as it can--cash money simply can't do that). Given these facts, expect this gap to always exist (and almost certainly continue to widen), even after poverty is eradicated.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Tesla employee count: 140,473

SpaceX employee count: 13,000

Elon Musk could transfer $1 million in stock to each of his 153,473 employees,
which would cost him $153 billion and he would still have a net worth of $302 billion!
He'd still be the richest man in the world and would still have $56 billion more than Jeff Bezos!

And some of that money he has came from under-paying factory workers at his Fremont, California assembly plant. For a long time the hourly rate was $22 (not sure what it is now) but auto plants in the Midwest were paying that or better and he was paying $22 per hour in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country.

Elon is now worth more than Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates combined.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

yes but have you considered that in nk they have no food and push the trains? (source: CIA) instead of all this radical talk i think we should VOTE harder, especially for progressive like bernie and aoc

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Careful, bub, there are people lurking who think this quite seriously

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You don't? Tankie detected 😠

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

Gasp! My clever disguise has been sundered!

[–] [email protected] 59 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (11 children)

The reason there isn't a revolution in the USA is mostly down to atomization. Suburban growth directly leads to insular communities with no sense of responsibility to the rest of their brothers and sisters. Working class families in the burbs have functionally 0 ability to organize.

To add that on, I like to underscore the gravity of the situation here with details:

  1. The top 10% of earners starts at ~170k/yr
  2. The top 1% start at ~820k/yr
  3. The top 0.1% start at ~3,300k/yr (3.3 million)
  4. If Elon Musk had 100% of his net worth in really basic bonds giving 5%/yr he'd be pulling in 22 BILLION dollars per year, forever.

The interest on his earnings alone is equivalent to 130,000 workers at the start of the top 10%. That's the entire workforce of American Airlines for comparison.

If the average person was paid like the 0.1% for 1 year they could retire and live off 65k/yr forever.

This chart is broken down by quintiles but it illustrates the disparity well imo.

Half of the wealth of the top 20% here (excluding top 1%) is in businesses or real estate they own. Most of that will be their own house and a small business, though ~~leeches~~ "landlords" mostly fall in this category too.

For the top 1% that's more like 20% of their net worth.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not sure where you're getting your income percentiles from.

This site shows that 90th percentile (top 10%) household starts at $230k and 99th percentile (top 1%) starts at $631k.

For individuals the same site shows that the 10% starts at $150k and the 1% starts at $430k.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/

Because holy shit does "dqydj.com" look sketchy as fuck. The fact you clicked on a URL called that has me worried for your safety.

Like skipping through a minefield

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Ok, I see where your source went wrong. Par for the course for Investopedia, which tends to get a lot of little details wrong (and sometimes misses the mark on the applicable scope of data that someone else has reported). But they've cited the Economic Policy Institute study of 2021 incomes, which looks at the average (mean) earnings within that group, rather than the actual amount that represents the boundary of that group. So it's not that it takes $3.1 million to be in the top 0.1%, it's that all the people of the top 1% average out to $3.1 million per year. Which, for the type of power distribution for household or individual incomes, is skewed heavily by the people who have the highest amounts.

And looking at the mean within that group can be fine, for certain purposes, but they've gone with the incorrect headline of saying "how much income puts you in the top 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.1%?" So it's a headline that is wrong, that reports on a different number within the data.

And your own comment, saying that reaching each percentile "starts at" the reported number, is also wrong.

Because holy shit does "dqydj.com" look sketchy as fuck.

It just stands for "don't quit your day job" and I've found that it's a reliable resource for statistical data that's widely available (like the ASEC numbers published by the Census Bureau and left to other people to actual turn into data visualization). It's up to date, and the data matches the summary report on the Census website, so what's the problem? The summary only reports the 90th and 95th percentiles, though, so I needed to find someone who actually reported on the thresholds for 99 (and not the averages within the top 1%).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

TIL - Thanks for the context on dqydj.com

Cause that would've been a straight "report spam" if I got an email from them.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

No dude you mixed some numbers up - 5%/yr of 440 billion is 22 BILLION dollars per year.

Unless you meant he could put 0.1% of his wealth (440 mil) to pull 22 million a year.

In fact, he could put less than half of his total net worth, 200 bil, into a basic savings account returning 0.5% a year and live off of a billion dollars a year, which is equivalent to the median income of 16,666 others.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (3 children)

What’s interesting is that this doesn’t even tell the whole picture.

Because those people earning $170k/year? More than likely their net worth is negative. They owe more than they’re making, and even at that income rate and excluding long term debt, they have just enough in savings to last three months max.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 94 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

Americans have historically been obsequiously subservient to the big man.

From Washington to Rockefeller to Bill Gates or Elon Musk, if you're the richest man in the country people will practically worship you as a demigod rather than revolt at your presence.

We may say we love Jesus, but our real God is Mamon

[–] [email protected] 62 points 3 days ago

America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.

Kurt Vonnegut

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago

Rockefeller hid in his guarded home for years before he and Carnegie did their philanthropy PR stuff. Carnegie fled to England, and was putting out press releases that supported the Unions, while at the same time telling Frick to gun down the strikers. The gilded age was full of violence that created folk heroes to this day. Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid, Pretty Boy George, Al Capone. These people were absolutely loved by the masses because they would destroy all the paper that said that old widow Johnson still owed on her mortgage. Bankers were beaten, hung, and shot for attempting to evict poor people.

We may have revered Washington, but since The Gilded Age, lots of us were taught by our grandparents and great grandparents that the greedy have no end to their greed, short of a bullet to the brain.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 3 days ago (3 children)

France didn't have the sophisticated propaganda machine the US has.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 days ago

Really, I think anyone considering themselves a Leftist needs to read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing." Both are excellent examples of why people don't change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn't mean Communists don't do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these "licenses" to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The French people do not tolerate shit, the Americans on the hand will wallow in it and say work harder for less.

[–] nomy 41 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's one of the main reasons our owner class has sought to mock the French with "surrender" slurs and "freedom fries."

They'd very much like the citizenry to forget Frances contribution to America and "western culture" over the last 200 years lest they get any ideas.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

100%

In France, they set shit on fire at the drop of a hat. Can't have that in 'Murica.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

the propaganda machine seem to do its job better in the us

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago (4 children)

why would you crop out the source declaration?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There are significant barriers in place for revolution in the US. The Proletariat is still under the belief that supporting US Imperialism will benefit themselves more than Socialism. Additionally, theory is frequently coopted by Trots and other impractical forms, resulting in people endlessly seeking to critique society, not change it (your Noam Chomskys and the like). Moreover, labor organization has been millitantly crushed.

I recommend starting with theory. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you want a place to start.

For elaboration on Chomsky, I recommend reading On Chomsky.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

i saw someone else try to share a similar message on tiktok yesterday and the overwhelming majority of the american users referred theory as little more than "book clubs for intellectuals" despite the chinese & latin american users trying to defend its usefulness on the same post.

getting my feet wet with this reading list is making it clear to me that i'm still a heavily propagandized american liberal and some of the tiktokers who called it a book club had seemingly more knowledge of theory that I did, so i wasn't qualified to speak up. what would your response be to such a criticism?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

I know it's cliche by this point. But this one misattributed^1^ quote has become more prescient than ever.

They've learned that giving us new shiny shit every year will keep the majority of us mollified against all kinds of injustice.

^1^ - Commonly credited to George Orwell's novel. It's actually from the stage play adaptation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

funny how such a big anticommunist meaning to predict socialism just ended up predicting capitalism

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I wouldn't glorify Orwell, he was violently reactionary, even Anarchists fighting alongside him questioned why he wasn't on the "other side." He had a deeply aristocratic worldview, admired Hitler, and despised the Working Class for their "stupidity." I recommend reading On Orwell as well as A Critical Read of Animal Farm.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not glorifying Orwell. I'm aware of his history. The quote actually belongs to either Robert Icke or Duncan MacMillan; the two men who wrote the stage adaptation. Politics aside, it's a fitting quote.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Looking at wealth distribution on a country-by-country basis is a mistake.

Take that US wealth distribution graph and then graph it with the rest of the world; the reason there's no revolution becomes obvious.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

please provide image

load more comments
view more: next ›