Trumps: White Angry Middleclass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Not outside of negotiated prices for services rendered and even then I wouldn't have the 'right' to set the terms the provider must adhere to.
If I attempted that, I'd expect the service provider to suggest I find someone else.

---

You get the services of public roads. The costs are not outside the provider's control?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

You get the services of public roads. The costs are not outside the provider's control?

---

Well that brings up the subject of public vs private. Would you suggest that your use of a toll road involves negotiable pricing for the user?
Or, on the public side, would you suggest that I have a 'right' to pay a lower fuel tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Well that brings up the subject of public vs private. Would you suggest that your use of a toll road involves negotiable pricing for the user?

---

Excellent non-answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

Excellent non-answer.

---

An answer not to your liking is still an answer. Try asking a more relevant question. Likening a public resource to a private provider only confuses people who can't see the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Maybe I need to state my point diffetently, then. By crossing the border, I take back some of the power over pricing - that's quite likely where the intense joy I feel once I cross the turnstile (sp?) and am in Mexico comes from. I refuse the role of victim by doing so and I vote with my feet. Rob

---

I'm sure General Motors and Rockwell feel the same joy. That's why I support free trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I'm sure General Motors and Rockwell feel the same joy. That's why I support free trade.

---

I see a huge difference here. In my case I am speaking of accessing basic human rights that I would not be priced out of in any other first world country due to socialized medicine. The corporations you speak of don't hold the same moral high ground that my example does......they are merely cutting costs to increase returns to shareholders. Big difference from a human rights perspective. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

Excellent non-answer.

---

Agreed. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

I see a huge difference here. In my case I am speaking of accessing basic human rights that I would not be priced out of in any other first world country due to socialized medicine. The corporations you speak of don't hold the same moral high ground that my example does......they are merely cutting costs to increase returns to shareholders. Big difference from a human rights perspective. Rob

---

Why is cost-cutting a basic human right for you but not GM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Why is cost-cutting a basic human right for you but not GM?

---

GM is human?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

GM is human?

---

It's composed of humans. It's struggling to survive in a competitive environment to support employees and shareholders.

The Aryan Nation is comprised of humans too. Should the Aryan Nation be given human rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Why is cost-cutting a basic human right for you but not GM?

---

Access to health care trumps (no reference to Mr. Trump) increasing shareholder wealth. I find it literally terrifying that many Americans don't understand this. Rob

You guys remind me of the many domestic disputes I had to respond to. The only way to resolve the argument was to first separate the parties and then look for common ground. And try to do that without getting stabbed, shot or assaulted.

In a way, both of you are right. The only responsibility of business, corporations and executives is to increase profits for the shareholders. As long as it is done in open and free competition without cheating and fraud. And here is where the other side is right. Our current model does not resemble anything like free and open competition.

First off, government threw that baby out with the bath water when they bailed out companies/corporations and executives who chose to take great risk with the shareholders money and lost it. The bailout reinforced attitudes that greater risk than reason would imply can be taken because you could expect to be too big to fail.

Second, shareholders are now prevailing upon their employees, the executives to apply certain social responsibilities to their customers and employees /workers. To be sure, there are still shareholders amongst them that want to simply maximize their profit but stockholders are increasingly becoming socially aware of the needs of their customers. And to some extent it can be a smart strategy for a company to at least fein interest in the environment, wealth redistribution or social issues.

But today's stockholder is increasingly demanding that a balance be struck between the strict rule of maximizing profit and the acceptance of some social responsibility. An executive cannot act in a way to satisfy both views. A political resolution must evolve. The Supreme Court opened Pandora's box further when it allowed corporations to act as individual lobbyists. So to enjoy the benefits of individuality without incurring the social responsibilities of individuals is inconsistent with free and open competition.

Liberals are simply calling out the cheating and hypocracy of it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

The Aryan Nation is comprised of humans too. Should the Aryan Nation be given human rights?

---

A member of the Aryan Nations, the CEO of IBM and the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association, along with their respective memberships have rights identical to yours. Otherwise the concept of rights becomes meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Access to health care trump's (no reference to Mr. Trump) increasing shareholder wealth. I find it literally terrifying that many Americans don't understand this. Rob

---

The wealth generated by corporations goes to make individuals richer, to fund pensions and retirement accounts, to create insurance reserves, to fund endowments and to pay the taxes needed to fund the things you consider yours by right. Why do your interests supersede any of those purposes? Why shouldn't anyone have the right to purchase services from any source they choose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

A member of the Aryan Nations, the CEO of IBM and the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association, along with their respective memberships have rights identical to yours. Otherwise the concept of rights becomes meaningless.

---

But I thought rights were only for people we liked? And people we don't like get to go to the camps to be re-educated and learn how to dig ditches and stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

...to fund pensions and retirement accounts...

---

Now I know you are just goofing around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

Now I know you are just goofing around.

---

I'm deadly serious. What's the point of the YMOYL paradigm if not to gain your freedom through membership in the rentier class?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I'm deadly serious. What's the point of the YMOYL paradigm if not to gain your freedom through membership in the rentier class?

---

Exactly so.

I used to build companies from scratch that employed thousands or tens of thousands of people by the time I moved on to the next. (And I couldn't have built them without the help of "evil" investment bankers/Wall Street/shareholders/pension funds/...).

One day I read YMOYL. I sold off my interests in my enterprises a few months later, and "retired" as suggested in YMOYL to reclaim the rest of my life for myself. That was 16+ years ago or so.

Now, I'm clearly not doing my "duty" to society as some envision it, because I'm not busting my ass 80+ hours a week building new technologies, creating new jobs, and so on. I'm not performing fully "according to my ability".

Luckily I already know how to dig ditches and plow fields, so I should be OK when they come to take me to the camps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

But I thought rights were only for people we liked? And people we don't like get to go to the camps to be re-educated and learn how to dig ditches and stuff.

---

"Human rights are not worthy of the name if they do not protect the people we don't like as well as those we do."
- Trevor Phillips

"IRS Apologizes to Tea Party Groups Over Audits of Applications for Tax Exemption"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/us...on-audits.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Do tell, Bae. Rob

---

I deal in human fulfillment. Can't say more, channel isn't secure. Hint though:

http://img01.deviantart.net/46ef/i/2...d_umbrella.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Exactly so.

I used to build companies from scratch that employed thousands or tens of thousands of people by the time I moved on to the next. (And I couldn't have built them without the help of "evil" investment bankers/Wall Street/shareholders/pension funds/...).

One day I read YMOYL. I sold off my interests in my enterprises a few months later, and "retired" as suggested in YMOYL to reclaim the rest of my life for myself. That was 16+ years ago or so.

---

Questions:

1. Were you discontent working when you read YMOL, or was it like a spiritual awakening/conversion experience?
2. What were the specific triggers in the book that led you to make such a drastic lifestyle change?
3. Did you make the transition quickly, and if not, how diid you prepare?
4. Have you ever regretted the change? Do you ever feel intellectually stagnant?
5. What did your family and friends say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

I think it's a good thing certain posters here are exposed to my thinking as I doubt they run across the line of thinking often on their daily lives.....just like I don't run across their thinking often. .....how could I possibly be offended by a person's opinion who doesn't get how things really are in the lower classes? ......I also know that fortunes can change overnight and those who don't get it these days may find themselves thrown out of their former position and forced to understand. If that happens to anyone here, perhaps they will remember my realistic advice and I'll then be of service in a way. Rob

---

Well said. You're a remarkable contributor to this forum. I'm always thankful you post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simone

Well said. You're a remarkable contributor to this forum. I'm always thankful you post.

---

Simone, Thank You for your kind words. They are very much appreciated! Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

Questions:

1. Were you discontent working when you read YMOL, or was it like a spiritual awakening/conversion experience?
2. What were the specific triggers in the book that led you to make such a drastic lifestyle change?
3. Did you make the transition quickly, and if not, how diid you prepare?
4. Have you ever regretted the change? Do you ever feel intellectually stagnant?
5. What did your family and friends say?

---

1 - I wasn't discontent - work was quite engaging, I was doing very cool stuff, with very cool people. I was discontented with the *place* I was living, Silicon Valley, as was my wife. We had a young daughter, and our community didn't seem like the ideal place to raise a child, too many people working too hard, and no real community in our neighborhood. We began searching around the country for a small-town/rural sort of environment, with many constraints. I took a sabbatical, and this was about the 5th place we looked at, and I happened to read YMOYL while I was here.

2- The key trigger was the math, and the observation that your life isn't a rehearsal for your "real" life, but that every moment is precious. Also, I'd had a good friend and mentor die just a few years previous, in his 30s - he was a world-class athlete (climbed Himalayan peaks), and a super-genius, and he walked past me at work one day, went into his office, sat down, and died from an aneurysm. I found the idea of reclaiming my life ASAP quite compelling.

3- We initially thought we'd buy a piece of property here, spend a few years building The Perfect House, then check out of Silicon Valley and move up here. Instead, we bought an OK house our first week of looking around, went back to Silicon Valley to pack up, and were back up here about a month later. I continued to telecommute for my company for the first year or two, then dropped back to simply consulting now-and-then. I don't know if I would have survived completely downshifting and quitting fully immediately. Also, while I believed the math, emotionally it was quite scary.

4 - I haven't really regretted anything. I worried I'd tire of this place/community after a short while, or find it unappealing, as almost all incomers here do after 1-2 years, but I've continued to grow fonder of it over time. Intellectually stagnant? Perhaps at times, until I redirected my efforts into other pursuits. I think I'm busier and more engaged than when I was "working" for a living, and have had to master several new disciplines over the years.

5 - my wife/daughter loved the idea. My wife's parents were dubious, and remained so. My mother liked the idea so much she moved here as well about a year after us, "retiring" early to do so. My Dad also, upon hearing my reasoning, retired early and moved with his husband to their dream "retirement" location, where he is busier than when he was working for real as well. Our friends-who-were-merely-acquaintances were/are dubious, and many drifted away. Our real friends seemingly understand, visit frequently, and some have purchased seasonal places here. We provoked a minor wave of early check-out/retirements in Silicon Valley, almost always to some island or mountain top somewhere.

So, YMOYL was a good thing to read at that time in my life.

Thanks, bae. Really interesting story, and helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

... The only responsibility of business, corporations and executives is to increase profits for the shareholders. As long as it is done in open and free competition without cheating and fraud. And here is where the other side is right. Our current model does not resemble anything like free and open competition.

First off, government threw that baby out with the bath water when they bailed out companies/corporations and executives who chose to take great risk with the shareholders money and lost it. The bailout reinforced attitudes that greater risk than reason would imply can be taken because you could expect to be too big to fail.

Second, shareholders are now prevailing upon their employees, the executives to apply certain social responsibilities to their customers and employees /workers. To be sure, there are still shareholders amongst them that want to simply maximize their profit but stockholders are increasingly becoming socially aware of the needs of their customers. And to some extent it can be a smart strategy for a company to at least fein interest in the environment, wealth redistribution or social issues.

But today's stockholder is increasingly demanding that a balance be struck between the strict rule of maximizing profit and the acceptance of some social responsibility. An executive cannot act in a way to satisfy both views. A political resolution must evolve. The Supreme Court opened Pandora's box further when it allowed corporations to act as individual lobbyists. So to enjoy the benefits of individuality without incurring the social responsibilities of individuals is inconsistent with free and open competition.

Liberals are simply calling out the cheating and hypocracy of it all.

---

Very well said.

CEO Pay Climbs Again, Even As Their Stock Prices Don't

http://www.continuityinsights.com/ne...ck-prices-dont

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lainey

CEO Pay Climbs Again, Even As Their Stock Prices Don't

http://www.continuityinsights.com/ne...ck-prices-dont

---

I often wonder, how long can this keep going on? How much longer can this be sustained? At what point are the pitchforks sharpened? At what point are they put in use? My biggest takeaway question is this.....why the assumption/belief that there will not be progressive consequences for this type of income inequality? Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

You guys remind me of the many domestic disputes I had to respond to. The only way to resolve the argument was to first separate the parties and then look for common ground. And try to do that without getting stabbed, shot or assaulted.

In a way, both of you are right. The only responsibility of business, corporations and executives is to increase profits for the shareholders. As long as it is done in open and free competition without cheating and fraud. And here is where the other side is right. Our current model does not resemble anything like free and open competition.

First off, government threw that baby out with the bath water when they bailed out companies/corporations and executives who chose to take great risk with the shareholders money and lost it. The bailout reinforced attitudes that greater risk than reason would imply can be taken because you could expect to be too big to fail.

Second, shareholders are now prevailing upon their employees, the executives to apply certain social responsibilities to their customers and employees /workers. To be sure, there are still shareholders amongst them that want to simply maximize their profit but stockholders are increasingly becoming socially aware of the needs of their customers. And to some extent it can be a smart strategy for a company to at least fein interest in the environment, wealth redistribution or social issues.

But today's stockholder is increasingly demanding that a balance be struck between the strict rule of maximizing profit and the acceptance of some social responsibility. An executive cannot act in a way to satisfy both views. A political resolution must evolve. The Supreme Court opened Pandora's box further when it allowed corporations to act as individual lobbyists. So to enjoy the benefits of individuality without incurring the social responsibilities of individuals is inconsistent with free and open competition.

Liberals are simply calling out the cheating and hypocracy of it all.

---

You seem to be touching on socially responsible investing which I believe is a wonderful thing. I just wish the required minumums to invest this way were lower. I've been putting small amounts of money into Acorns to put something away. A survey I did for $8.....spare change..... $20 I found on the street, that kind of thing. I just wish Acorns had a socially responsible option as I do feel guilt investing blindly as I am doing.....who knows what I am subsidizing/rubber stamping/giving tacit approval to? I'm looking into Stash, an app similar to Acorns, with a $5 minimum to get in and they have a Clean and Green investment option that sounds interesting. I can start up again donating plasma and put the money here perhaps. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

1 - I wasn't discontent - work was quite engaging, I was doing very cool stuff, with very cool people. I was discontented with the *place* I was living, Silicon Valley, as was my wife. We had a young daughter, and our community didn't seem like the ideal place to raise a child, too many people working too hard, and no real community in our neighborhood. We began searching around the country for a small-town/rural sort of environment, with many constraints. I took a sabbatical, and this was about the 5th place we looked at, and I happened to read YMOYL while I was here.

2- The key trigger was the math, and the observation that your life isn't a rehearsal for your "real" life, but that every moment is precious. Also, I'd had a good friend and mentor die just a few years previous, in his 30s - he was a world-class athlete (climbed Himalayan peaks), and a super-genius, and he walked past me at work one day, went into his office, sat down, and died from an aneurysm. I found the idea of reclaiming my life ASAP quite compelling.

3- We initially thought we'd buy a piece of property here, spend a few years building The Perfect House, then check out of Silicon Valley and move up here. Instead, we bought an OK house our first week of looking around, went back to Silicon Valley to pack up, and were back up here about a month later. I continued to telecommute for my company for the first year or two, then dropped back to simply consulting now-and-then. I don't know if I would have survived completely downshifting and quitting fully immediately. Also, while I believed the math, emotionally it was quite scary.

4 - I haven't really regretted anything. I worried I'd tire of this place/community after a short while, or find it unappealing, as almost all incomers here do after 1-2 years, but I've continued to grow fonder of it over time. Intellectually stagnant? Perhaps at times, until I redirected my efforts into other pursuits. I think I'm busier and more engaged than when I was "working" for a living, and have had to master several new disciplines over the years.

5 - my wife/daughter loved the idea. My wife's parents were dubious, and remained so. My mother liked the idea so much she moved here as well about a year after us, "retiring" early to do so. My Dad also, upon hearing my reasoning, retired early and moved with his husband to their dream "retirement" location, where he is busier than when he was working for real as well. Our friends-who-were-merely-acquaintances were/are dubious, and many drifted away. Our real friends seemingly understand, visit frequently, and some have purchased seasonal places here. We provoked a minor wave of early check-out/retirements in Silicon Valley, almost always to some island or mountain top somewhere.

So, YMOYL was a good thing to read at that time in my life.

---

Bae, even though we often don't agree I find your story interesting and I also agree that every moment is precious.....you really don't know when your time here ends. Best to enjoy it, which you seem to be doing. Rob

Bae, very interesting story. Not knowing how much time we have left is our main inspiration to travel more at this time. We have lost some friends and I want to make sure I am spending my time and $ the way I want. I have had a few people ask why I still teach my online class and I still do it because I love it and it fills my soul. When that is no longer the case I will not teach it anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

1 - I wasn't discontent - work was quite engaging, I was doing very cool stuff, with very cool people. I was discontented with the *place* I was living, Silicon Valley, as was my wife. We had a young daughter, and our community didn't seem like the ideal place to raise a child, too many people working too hard, and no real community in our neighborhood. We began searching around the country for a small-town/rural sort of environment, with many constraints. I took a sabbatical, and this was about the 5th place we looked at, and I happened to read YMOYL while I was here.

2- The key trigger was the math, and the observation that your life isn't a rehearsal for your "real" life, but that every moment is precious. Also, I'd had a good friend and mentor die just a few years previous, in his 30s - he was a world-class athlete (climbed Himalayan peaks), and a super-genius, and he walked past me at work one day, went into his office, sat down, and died from an aneurysm. I found the idea of reclaiming my life ASAP quite compelling.

3- We initially thought we'd buy a piece of property here, spend a few years building The Perfect House, then check out of Silicon Valley and move up here. Instead, we bought an OK house our first week of looking around, went back to Silicon Valley to pack up, and were back up here about a month later. I continued to telecommute for my company for the first year or two, then dropped back to simply consulting now-and-then. I don't know if I would have survived completely downshifting and quitting fully immediately. Also, while I believed the math, emotionally it was quite scary.

4 - I haven't really regretted anything. I worried I'd tire of this place/community after a short while, or find it unappealing, as almost all incomers here do after 1-2 years, but I've continued to grow fonder of it over time. Intellectually stagnant? Perhaps at times, until I redirected my efforts into other pursuits. I think I'm busier and more engaged than when I was "working" for a living, and have had to master several new disciplines over the years.

5 - my wife/daughter loved the idea. My wife's parents were dubious, and remained so. My mother liked the idea so much she moved here as well about a year after us, "retiring" early to do so. My Dad also, upon hearing my reasoning, retired early and moved with his husband to their dream "retirement" location, where he is busier than when he was working for real as well. Our friends-who-were-merely-acquaintances were/are dubious, and many drifted away. Our real friends seemingly understand, visit frequently, and some have purchased seasonal places here. We provoked a minor wave of early check-out/retirements in Silicon Valley, almost always to some island or mountain top somewhere.

So, YMOYL was a good thing to read at that time in my life.

---

I read YMOYL my last year of college, to my great benefit. My take, after scraping off the 1960s-70s New Age candy coating, was that time is the finite resource that we should seek to maximize through the disciplined and intelligent management of our careers, finances and personal lives. The most important element to me was the necessity of a long-term plan, even if that plan needed frequent recalibration as life unfolded.

I seem to recall you once mentioning that during your transitional period you decided to give away a considerable portion of your net worth. As someone not particularly burdened by substantial wealth, I'm curious about how you determined how much to keep and whether you had a formal plan for converting assets into income.

I'm sad that Williamsmith is not here to continue the discussion he started, as Bernie is "berning" out of his amazing run challenging Hillary Clinton.

How are the other Bernie supporters here planning on proceeding? Vote for Hill? Write in Bernie? Vote for Trump?

I honestly don't know what I'll do, and that's because I am a bit emotional about the shortfall in votes Bernie had and the inevitability of his withdrawal from the race.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but knowing the Clintons (and BTW I loved Bill Clinton as POTUS) I don't trust the voting results. There have been reports of votes not counted, voter names missing, etc which led to Bernie not achieving expected results in states like CA. Power wields the privilege to bend the rules, so who knows what happened there? In politics, anything is possible.

My instinct is to write in Bernie, but OTOH, as one Bernie supporter said in an NPR article "I would probably vote for Trump, to burst the bubble, to finally pop the zit."

I simply can't/don't trust Hillary. Those Clintons know how to play the game.

.

Quote:

---

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but knowing the Clintons (and BTW I loved Bill Clinton as POTUS) I don't trust the voting results. There have been reports of votes not counted, voter names missing, etc which led to Bernie not achieving expected results in states like CA.

---

CALIFORNIA HAS NOT FULLY BEEN COUNTED. That's not even a conspiracy theory. It's a FACT. As counting proceeds some counties in California are flipping toward Bernie (not the huge ones yet but nonetheless). The California election results are not in. I make no prediction on what they would be if they were in (if I had to probably a very slim margin for Hills), but they just aren't in.

There was a lot of voter disenfranchisement in many places across the country, but in California the results of actually cast ballots have not even been counted yet.

Not that this state matters much but I plan to vote 3rd party, if you can't run a decent candidate (ie you are running Hillary), why should I vote for your bad candidates. Makes no sense.

I am just going to stay home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

I am just going to stay home.

---

I was thinking of voting for the first female nominee for President - Jill Stein (not that she was really the first, either, but especially given this is her second time the title should not be handed to Clinton).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

...

I simply can't/don't trust Hillary. Those Clintons know how to play the game.

---

here in the urban core, during the primary the new voter computerized list went down and so they let a anyone in to vote. Yes, Voting early and often was happening just down the street. Me, I didnt get all up in arms because I knew that no votes were being taken away from any Republicans, theynwould have all been votnv for Hillary. A loss for Bernie and for democracy, of course.
It really is too bad.

I also was a fan of Bill as POTUS, I even liked Hillary when she was our Senator and Secretary of State, but Bernie has my heart. I think he could've done amazing things for this country. I would never vote for Trump, even if that "zit needs to be popped" and I would never not vote. So Hillary for me. But I am bitter over Bernie