this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024

-39 points (14.5% liked)

Conservative

386 readers

7 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Blamemeta@lemm.ee

ConMod@lemm.ee

wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee

-39

Americans are getting more worried about jobs (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 9 months ago by wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee to c/conservative@lemm.ee

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I think this is a combination of inflation and employers wanting people to return to the office. I am excited for people to return to the office as it means I can earn a lot more money.

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm never going back to the office. Working from home is convenient and doesn't waste my time commuting, so I get more work done. All my startups have been remote as well; unless there's something about your work that requires physical presence, office space is a waste of money.

The only people who want to argue with that are those who own commercial real estate. Maybe they should pick better investments instead of expecting us to bail them out 🤷

[+] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The only people who want to argue with that are those who own commercial real estate

Well, that isn't true at all. I know many people who want to return who don't own commercial real estate.

I work in sales and people in offices means more sales for me. Over the past six months, I have seen a large push for people to return and fewer jobs available for those who don't want to return.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Strange, you claimed to be a doctor in another thread. Whatever, I didn't say nobody wants to go back to the office, I said it's unnecessary and a waste of money if your work doesn't require physical presence.

Edit: actually, not whatever. I figured you for a liar and a shill months back since you spout nothing but GQP sound bites and don't actually engage with what people say; you just went and proved it to my satisfaction. Enjoy your shiny new block 🤡

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think I've seen wintermute claim to be in cyber software sales before. I missed where he was also a doctor.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Obviously, having blocked him, it's hard to go check myself (also I'm at work - gotta earn that cheddar, we can't all be doctor cyber software salesmen) but it was probably in this thread somewhere: https://lemmy.world/comment/6829461

I think that was the one where I first tried to engage with them, anyway.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Here is the latest consumer confidence report.

Why is this so hard to include this information in the article, newsweek? High Schoolers don't do this crap

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Grade school level journalism is what passes for content around here unfortunately. So it will continue to happen.

[–] Lookin4GoodArgs@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

There is nothing in the article that supports the headline. As far as I can tell, it's just another way of saying 'Americans are worry about the economy'.

I'm specifically worried about jobs, though. We need more jobs with better conditions and higher taxes on them. That sounds like a recipe for disaster, but that's only true if we continue to allow the 1% to own more than the entire middle class. An excess of private wealth necessarily leads to an excess of public squalor.

[+] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

An excess of private wealth necessarily leads to an excess of public squalor.

That isn't true at all. The ultra-wealth, like Elon or Bezos, is not the reason you are poor. Their wealth is paper wealth.

Do you think Elon could convert his stock to that much cash? He can't.

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

That isn’t true at all. The ultra-wealth, like Elon or Bezos, is not the reason you are poor. Their wealth is paper wealth.

For private individuals who cannot print money and cannot effect the rate that a government prints money, the economy is a zero sum game. So the rich hoarding wealth directly impacts and impoverishes the rest of us.

Do you think Elon could convert his stock to that much cash? He can’t.

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Peepin made the claim, and supported it saying that the 1% own more than the entire middle class. You dismissed that, and demanded a high level of evidence for a different claim, the claim that [all the]* stock can be converted to cash.

But that wasn't the original claim. Owning stock is still a form of owning wealth, even if it isn't perfectly liquid. Peepin's claims of the 1% owning more than the middle class is true.

[+] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So the rich hoarding wealth directly impacts and impoverishes the rest of us. Cite. That goes against every economic theory I have seen.

You dismissed that, and demanded a high level of evidence for a different claim, the claim that stock can be converted to cash.

How to say you don't understand wealth or cash.

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Cite. That goes against every economic theory I have seen.

I already supported that claim:

For private individuals who cannot print money and cannot effect the rate that a government prints money, the economy is a zero sum game.

You can't just magic a few zeros onto your bank account. Wealth has to come from somewhere. Every dollar you make selling car tires (assuming you even own said production) means that a dollar of potential sales has been used. There is a limit to how many car tires can be sold. It is for the most part a zero sum game.

Regardless of how you're ignoring what I said:

https://www.epi.org/blog/inequality-main-persistent-poverty/

How to say you don’t understand wealth or cash.

Are you saying stocks are not a form of wealth?

Or does this comment merely serve to insult my intelligence?

[+] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For private individuals who cannot print money and cannot effect the rate that a government prints money, the economy is a zero sum game

Neither can Elon. Yet you tried to link the two. The rich have nothing to do with you being poor. That’s economics 101.

I don’t buy into the economic inequality theory. It’s bogus. Rich people are not why you are poor.

Are you saying stocks are not a form of wealth?

It is but it’s not cash. It’s not easy to convert that amount of stock to cash. It’s funny money.

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Neither can Elon

That's my point. There is a limit to how many car tires can be sold. So when the rich sell more, that necessarily takes away potential sales from others. It's basically a zero sum game.

And the rich own all the factories and production. So every dollar of product they sell is a dollar of sales that goes to them. That leaves not enough for the rest of us, making us impoverished.

It is but it’s not cash

But it's wealth. And the original claim was about wealth, not cash. You are moving the goal posts, which is fallacious.

[+] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So when the rich sell more, that necessarily takes away potential sales from others

Not sure you understand how companies work. When they sell something. It doesn’t go into the pocket of Elon. It does into the funds of the company. For every Tesla sold. Elon receives zero dollars.

And the rich own all the factories and production

Elon owns zero factories. Same with bezos. Neither own any of those items.

So every dollar of product they sell is a dollar of sales that goes to them

Zero dollar goes to either one. I’m starting to see why you make the rants you make. You don’t understand shareholders or companies well.

If I buy ten teslas. Elon received zero dollars. If I spend a million dollars at Amazon bezos receives zero dollars.

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

When they sell something. It doesn’t go into the pocket of Elon. It does into the funds of the company. For every Tesla sold. Elon receives zero dollars.

Again, you're getting hung up on literal cash. Cash is not the only form of wealth. And the rich get their wealth from these companies. Sometimes it is literal cash, but most often it is in the form of stocks.

And the wealth these companies earn disproportionately goes to the rich, the stock holders, upper management, etc.

Elon owns zero factories. Same with bezos. Neither own any of those items.

The rich own the companies that own the production. I know you're more intelligent than this.

Zero dollar goes to either one

Again, you're getting hung up on the distinction between cash, stock, and wealth.

[+] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

And the wealth these companies earn disproportionately goes to the rich, the stock holders, upper management, etc.

You mean the employee. Pension funds. 401k. I get stock as part of my job.

Also you are confusing earnings with dividends. The two are not the same. Earning go the company. They don’t go to the list you created. Earnings only go to the company.

Again, you’re getting hung up on the distinction between cash, stock, and wealth.

You mean facts and logic. The differences are important. It’s why you struggle with these topics because it’s all magic and unicorns. You don’t get why Elon is wealthy or how he became wealthy. You just want to feel he took your money but you never bought a Tesla. It’s strange thinking.

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I get stock as part of my job.

I thought you were self employed? You must be one of those gay black men with trans friends.

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Also you are confusing earnings with dividends.

I never mentioned either of them, because i am not talking about the literal specifics of how the wealth is distributed. You have no point here.

You mean facts and logic.

No. You are getting hung up on the actual methods of how the wealth is distributed, cherrypicking the ways in which it is not as a means to say that the rich aren't extracting wealth.

Your argument relies on fallacies the whole way through.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm no economist but I'd put this as consumer confidence falling after all the post holiday layoffs in tech finally went through. A very slight downward trend in confidence compared to the very slight optimism of the last 3 months. The unemployment rate and inflation rates have held steady so i think numbers will bounce back next month as it doesn't seem to be based on actual market conditions.