Panicked super rich buying boltholes with private airstrips to escape if poor rise up

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Jamie1
As you ponder an honest answer and your hateful rebuttal, give serious consideration to the question. How much would you pay somebody to walk your garbage out to the road and put it into a truck before it was cheaper and easier for you to do it yourself?

You'll find your answer defines value.

And the person who drives the truck? So now you're carting your garbage to the dump. And the administrative people that make sure people have trash service so that it doesn't pile up and create hazards? That gets more expensive without trash service, and more intrusive.

If you do that for yourself, what of the people who no longer have jobs? How much is it worth to you to not have unemployment issues along with the crime that comes with it? How much will you pay in additional police to deal with that crime?

Let's stick with one subject at a time.

How much would you pay out of your own pocket to have somebody walk your garbage from your house to the road?

Are you talking about chores? Does this person do this all the time and get paid weekly?

Also, what do you define as garbage?

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Jamie1
As you ponder an honest answer and your hateful rebuttal, give serious consideration to the question. How much would you pay somebody to walk your garbage out to the road and put it into a truck before it was cheaper and easier for you to do it yourself?

You'll find your answer defines value.

And the person who drives the truck? So now you're carting your garbage to the dump. And the administrative people that make sure people have trash service so that it doesn't pile up and create hazards? That gets more expensive without trash service, and more intrusive.

If you do that for yourself, what of the people who no longer have jobs? How much is it worth to you to not have unemployment issues along with the crime that comes with it? How much will you pay in additional police to deal with that crime?

Let's stick with one subject at a time.

How much would you pay out of your own pocket to have somebody walk your garbage from your house to the road?

Are you talking about chores? Does this person do this all the time and get paid weekly?

Also, what do you define as garbage?

It doesn't really matter.

It's to illustrate a point about value.

People complain about the rich, and that poor people should be paid more.... until they are faced with having to pay somebody with their own money to do real work.

Then the same people would rightfully agree that it would be idiotic to pay an unskilled worker $20 an hour for something they could do themselves in 5 minutes.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Jamie1
As you ponder an honest answer and your hateful rebuttal, give serious consideration to the question. How much would you pay somebody to walk your garbage out to the road and put it into a truck before it was cheaper and easier for you to do it yourself?

You'll find your answer defines value.

And the person who drives the truck? So now you're carting your garbage to the dump. And the administrative people that make sure people have trash service so that it doesn't pile up and create hazards? That gets more expensive without trash service, and more intrusive.

If you do that for yourself, what of the people who no longer have jobs? How much is it worth to you to not have unemployment issues along with the crime that comes with it? How much will you pay in additional police to deal with that crime?

Let's stick with one subject at a time.

How much would you pay out of your own pocket to have somebody walk your garbage from your house to the road?

Are you talking about chores? Does this person do this all the time and get paid weekly?

Also, what do you define as garbage?

It doesn't really matter.

It's to illustrate a point about value.

People complain about the rich, and that poor people should be paid more.... until they are faced with having to pay somebody with their own money to do real work.

Then the same people would rightfully agree that it would be idiotic to pay an unskilled worker $20 an hour for something they could do themselves in 5 minutes.

I would never pay somebody $20/hour to take out the garbage. $20 a week seems standard.

I complain about the rich

I think poor people should be paid more

Then the record comes to a stop and the party stops...What are you talking about an unskilled worker $20/hr for something someone could do in 5 minutes? What in the world are you talking about? Where is that $20/hr job at? Sign me up!!!

originally posted by: Jamie1
Let's stick with one subject at a time.

How much would you pay out of your own pocket to have somebody walk your garbage from your house to the road?

Nothing. Why would I? That's also not what garbage men do.

a reply to: Jamie1

How much would you pay somebody to walk your garbage out to the road

you must be confused...that would be the job of the house owner or tenant....but you have maybe come up with a business idea....i wonder if lazy people would pay someone on garbage day to take the bins out for the garbage man....i could charge say $2 ...then i would only need to take out 100 bins to make $200 and i reckon it would only take a couple of hours assuming all the residences were in close proximity ....

Americans simply don't have this kind of inter-family support system, never have and never will, because they are brainwashed morons. I know first hand because I came from one of those "idiot American" brainwashed families that are still broke to this day. When I got to experience how Asians do things, first hand, I was amazed how stupid American families are in contrast, "boot strapping" their way into poverty, while kicking kids out of the home at 18, that don't know how to survive.

Thanks for supporting my above comment Jamie1, bet you didn't see that coming.


Umm just a question

What is keeping you from doing the same?

Or for that matter any family from doing the same? Isn't that what a family is a group of people that help each other and work to make their children's lives better?

Isn't that the American Dream Work had, help you family and grow?

Did you have to pay a dime for the first 15+ years of your life? Probably not.

I'm the first person in my entire extended family that got a 4 year collage degree. I worked 40 hours a week and went to school full time. I started work as a bagger at Krogers in high school and worked my way up to a 6 figure salary. Now I work for the DoD for 50% of what I made as a contractor, but I did that for personal reasons.

(And no most government workers do not make over $100K)

a reply to: Cuervo

To answer your question, yes, it is perfectly acceptable that there always remains a level of people who choose to stay in lower "entry level" jobs making entry level money living in entry level lifestyles. Also, using the term "a large segment" is fairly ambiguous. I think it's a small segment.

a reply to: dismanrc

I experienced the same thing when I was 18 I was also kicked out of my house when I was 18. Funny thing was my family were all educated school teachers and owned over a dozen properties and could have easily helped me go to school. I didn't qualify for financial aid because my family made to much so I just said to hell with it and joined the army. Now I'm 42 and working as a nurse everything I have I got with my own hands!
I made sure not to do the same thing to my 18 year old son though he's now attending his first year of college at Washington Seattle pacific university.when my family asks me why I spend so much money I make sure to let them know that I help my kids unlike them. Pisses them off lol!
You are right a lot of American families don't want to help their kids even when they can it's strange.I think this is the reason a lot of elderly Americans end up in rest homes because children feel no obligation to help their parents out and I can't blame them I feel the same way!

*shrugs* I know a lot of people buying boltholes that are not super rich.

If poor/middle class are doing it why not the rich.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Boltholes will not do any good unless it's a top secret military grade bunker! People hoarding goods and food will just make targets of themselves. Guns and ammo and the ability to form an organized militia will be priceless though! with today's modern equipment available to the public a well armed militia could be very effective in stopping looting!

originally posted by: Jamie1
Let's stick with one subject at a time.

How much would you pay out of your own pocket to have somebody walk your garbage from your house to the road?

Ha...what a response. Do you know what your garbage man/crew does day to day? Doesn't seem like you do.

Taking out the garbage includes not only "walking your garbage from your house to the road", but also REQUIRES someone with a commercial license to drive the trash AWAY from your road, it also requires fees to dump the trash somewhere AWAY from your road AND don't forget the HAZMAT license that some of the crew need AND mandatory OSHA training/certification that the trash-man needs to renew EVERY year.

a reply to: tiberius10721

I don't disagree, folks I know are just planning to secure there area and assist with helping those in the area.

originally posted by: dismanrc
What is keeping you from doing the same?

Or for that matter any family from doing the same? Isn't that what a family is a group of people that help each other and work to make their children's lives better?

Did you have to pay a dime for the first 15+ years of your life? Probably not.

I'm not sure if you kept up with my previous posts, but I don't believe children should exists anymore. Simply because they have no place in the future, where there will be no gainful employment or training opportunities for them. We have reached a breaking point where people need to be strongly discouraged culturally, from having children, even those that can afford them. Make no mistake, AI and immortal people (singularity, cell regeneration etc) are going to corner ALL labor markets and being a self-employed, entrepreneur, isn't going to make one bit of difference. At this point more people only drives down wages and increases the misery for all those already here on earth. So until western economic and corporate policies change or shift dramatically, I will continue to stand by my point that children are a detriment to all of our economic futures and well being.

a reply to: boohoo

Lol or we could think outside the box and start spending money on the space industry instead of useless wars and their would be plenty of work and resourses for everybody! Gene Roddenberry figured this out a long time ago! We can act like bugs trapped in a jar or we can act like human beings with the God given power to think outside the box!
We should already been into manned space exploration hard and heavy by now but there seems to never be any extra money for nasa but plenty of money for everything else!

In no way do i object to people from overseas coming to nz to buy land IF they become a living resident here and contribute to life in nz and pay taxes, but I object to people buying up the land and not living here and renting their land to kiwis at huge costs or buying farm land not live here and growing food to sell to their own country, the more cultures the better I say but they must live here and contribute be that working or creating work for other folks. No holiday homes here thanks. reply to: crazyewok

originally posted by: tiberius10721
Lol or we could think outside the box and start spending money on the space industry instead of useless wars and their would be plenty of work and resources for everybody! Gene Roddenberry figured this out a long time ago! We can act like bugs trapped in a jar or we can act like human beings with the God given power to think outside the box!
We should already been into manned space exploration hard and heavy by now but there seems to never be any extra money for nasa but plenty of money for everything else!

There nothing humorous about my comment. Kids don't have a place in our current society and will have even less of a place, when they grow up, and need to exchange labor for wages. Better they never exist in the first place, only then will the "Owners of Capital" start negotiating, history has proven this to be fact.

NONE, of what you just wrote is ever going to happen. There is NO "outside of the box thinking" coming from influential Americans. These "Owners of Capital" have decided for all of us, what kind of "outside of the box thinking" will be accepted and what will not. Sure the ideas are there and so is the technology, but that means nothing if the people with the money don't want to invest the capital. The story of Tesla's, Wardenclyffe Tower, is all the proof needed to support my assertion.

Make no mistake, Artificial Intelligence and wealthy immortal humans (rising from singularity tech, cell regeneration,etc) are going to corner ALL labor markets and being a self-employed, entrepreneur, isn't going to make one bit of difference. At this point birthing more people, only drives down wages and increases the misery for all those already here on earth. So until western economic and corporate policies change or shift dramatically, I will continue to stand by my point, that children are a detriment to all of our economic futures and well being.

Maybe, in the distant future, some other country will come up with partial compromises, in line with your above recommendations, but NEVER in America, NEVER in 100 years, NEVER in 200 years, NEVER!

If anyone has any doubts about whether the "owners of capital", are taking advantage of there being "too many people" in the job market, look no further than this Wall Street Journal Article where Venky Ganesan, at Menlo Ventures, says the following:

"the independent-contractor model benefits workers and businesses both—and it isn’t a worry for investors as long as labor is still abundant".

On-Demand Workers: ‘We Are Not Robots’

The only ways to stop this kind of exploitation, is to unionize or make less people. Americans are NEVER going to unionize, so all we have left is "making less babies and aggressively blocking immigration", even if those sentiments are NOT supported by government officials and corporations.

The 21st century mantra for regular joe's should be:

"Save a job, don't make babies, denigrate those who do and keep ALL Temporary Visa workers, out of your local labor force, AT ANY COST, BY ANY MEANS"

"Jobs for citizens first"
"No babies"
"No temporary workers"
"No exceptions"

a reply to: boohoo

Ah, yes. Punish the rich by not reproducing.

Excellent tactic!

Personally, I would rather see reproduction limited to those with drive and intelligence. No drive, no intelligence, no reproduction. Pretty draconian, no?

To the OP:

Isn't that pretty much was any survivalist worth his salt would do (sans the private airstrips)? We see many people setting up the "bolt" holes who are not super rich.... If I were super rich I would do the same, although not cause I expect the poor to rise up against me, but simply due to a realization that the veneer known as civilization is thin....very thin.

In a major city, how much food is readily availlable at any given time? Roughly a week? What about fuel? So if something catastrophic happened to a whole region of the US, it is unlikely enough help would come soon enough.... then you would see this veneer known as civilization fall apart pretty quickly.

I was in the Aftermath of Katrina and I can tell you that civilization was but a heartbeat away from crumbling.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: boohoo
Ah, yes. Punish the rich by not reproducing.

Excellent tactic!

Personally, I would rather see reproduction limited to those with drive and intelligence. No drive, no intelligence, no reproduction. Pretty draconian, no?

Yes, on many levels it seems like a counter intuitive response to oppression, but it is easily the most effective solution to reduce the power of the current "Owners of Capital". Note, I'm not talking about eugenics or infanticide or anything like that, but I believe that when people like Bill Gates promote the idea of "lower populations" I think thy are being disingenuous, because they absolutely know, when more people that are born, without the ability to sell their labor for wages, the more control the "Owners of Capital" end up having over the populace.

In actually, its the only tactic left that regular people can employ, on a large scale, unhampered by regulation or law enforcement. Cutting off the labor supply, ABSOLUTELY hurts the "Owners of Capital". Our entire society, culture and economics system are geared to giving the "Owners of Capital" more incremental power, in lock step, with actual and projected population increases. Contrary to popular sentiments, lower populations of people whom are NOT "Owners of Capital" actually always results in them having MORE say in how to manage their own affairs without mandates from above. When populations rise the "Owners of Capital" end up having more in say how regular people manage their day to day affairs. Realize, if we somehow had a situation where everyone under 40 stopped having kids the government and big corps would start handing out cash incentives and tax credits, there would be a frenzy among the "owners of capital" to keep that power dynamic going at any cost. They know this and have for a very long time, regular people, on the other hand, don't have a clue and keep making babies driving the value of labor down for everyone else.

Lets go back to the 18th century for a moment to get a historical example.

Here is an excerpt, by Yasha Levine, from the book, The Invention of Capitalism, by Michael Perelman, summarizing a common public policy stance of the 18th century elite:

Yep, despite what you might have learned, the transition to a capitalistic society did not happen naturally or smoothly. See, English peasants didn’t want to give up their rural communal lifestyle, leave their land and go work for below-subsistence wages in #ty, dangerous factories being set up by a new, rich class of landowning capitalists. And for good reason, too. Using Adam Smith’s own estimates of factory wages being paid at the time in Scotland, a factory-peasant would have to toil for more than three days to buy a pair of commercially produced shoes. Or they could make their own traditional brogues using their own leather in a matter of hours, and spend the rest of the time getting wasted on ale. It’s really not much of a choice, is it?… Faced with a peasantry that didn’t feel like playing the role of slave, philosophers, economists, politicians, moralists and leading business figures began advocating for government action. Over time, they enacted a series of laws and measures designed to push peasants out of the old and into the new by destroying their traditional means of self-support. “The brutal acts associated with the process of stripping the majority of the people of the means of producing for themselves might seem far removed from the laissez-faire reputation of classical political economy,” writes Perelman. “In reality, the dispossession of the majority of small-scale producers and the construction of laissez-faire are closely connected, so much so that Marx, or at least his translators, labeled this expropriation of the masses as ‘‘primitive accumulation.’’

Now having artificially created an increasing population, that has no access to public land and has no ability to fashion tools and shelter from foraged materials and Voilà, you get people whom must follow the rules created by the "Owners of Capital". On the flip side, reduce the number of people and those rules suddenly become irrelevant because they become difficult or impossible to enforce. The result is that the "Owners of Capital", facing conditions of inaccessible or uncooperative labor pools, will quickly need to truly incentivize cooperation from the labor pools of the masses.

a reply to: boohoo

I was being a bit sarcastic.

I think it is a foolish notion. Might as well chop off your own nose to spite your face.