Comments

1
Under Horrible Crimes: I don't know what a gild is, much less a 21-year-old one, but the headline on the PI page says a 12-year-old girl.
2
@1) Blogging with the flu here. Got it fixed now. Thanks.
3
Won't somebody save that poor elephant? Hasn't she suffered enough?
4

They only have enough funding for 2 more barrels of K-Y.
5
Surviving for three days on beer is an achievement? I guess I'm more accomplished that I thought.
6
Nope. We demand more suffering. More I say!
7
Get better Dominic!
8
@6 So your kiddies can say "Look mommy, that sad elephant is crying"?
10
@9: and stagnant income levels for the middle & working classes over the last 30 years show that it remains a theory.
11
For the record, I've never survived for three days on beer. Beer and pizza, though - well, that's another story entirely.
12
@7) Thanks, Vince. I'm gonna go chug some Dayquil.
13
I wonder if you can survive for three days on Dayquil?
14
The bottom 10% are Officially Lazy Worthless Fucks
so Boo-Fucking-Hoo......
15
I'm not sure if 6:1 is fair or not, but if we could adjust the rules of capitalism a little so we got a 6:1 instead of a 14:1, that would be a good thing. And those in the "6" group -- the 1% -- are still going to work just as hard to grow wealth.
16
@11: You think that's bad! I once had to make it through an evening with only gin and capers!
17
@5 It was quite common back in the day for Monks to fast throughout Lent (40 days) on beer and water.

Certainly, getting enough calories from Coors Light to keep warm for 3 days in a snowdrift stranded Toyota is something, but hardly notable as a beer fast.
18
Re: School board member fails standardized test for 10th graders. News articles like this bug the crap out of me because they never include the actual tests. "Standardized tests are bad; adults fail them; oh, but we're not going to show you the actual questions so you can make an informed decision." (I'm not defending standardized tests; I pretty much blew them off when I took them and ended up in the lower reading / math levels and was put on the non-college secretarial school track. Those three years of typing class have really paid off.)
20
@16: Oops, used my old proflie. I moved to Wallingford.
21
@8 It's ok, I just tell them that elephant tears help cure cancer. They're the real heroes!
22
@15,

I don't know if I agree that they'll work just as hard. My impression of countries with lower disparities between rich and poor is that most people there have much more reasonable attitudes toward work. They work to live; they don't live to work. But if decreasing the disparity makes even rich people less willing to spend all their time working, I can't say that's a bad thing.
23
@22 my experience has been that if you tighten the screws, if you make it more difficult to make a profit, people work just as hard. You don't see millionaires working less in a down economy, where the profits are shrunk by the economic situation. You may be right about people working to live. And I should add that I would hope the solution would only apply to the theorhetical 1% and not the theorhetical "small business owner" who is not making sixteentimes what his two employees are making.

I really view it like the forty hour work week, safety standards anD child labor laws. These laws cut into profits, but not so much that people stopped working so hard. There needs to be new regulations to ensure workers are not taken advantage of to tHe detriment of an otherwise fairly successful system. Capitalism only works with the proper regulations.
24
Happy to see you're now facing left, @20.
25
That income inequality article is horribly written.
26
There's a big difference between "disparity in wealth" and "disparity in income". Dominic refers to the former, but in fact the linked article is about the latter. The disparity in wealth is much much larger than the disparity in income. For the math geeks, income minus expenses is the time derivative of wealth (ok, plus there's appreciation, and the biggie, inheritance). For the people with the lowest incomes, subtracting out basic-living expenses means their accumulated wealth actually goes down every year. A disturbingly large fraction of Americans (and not just young adults with e.g. student debts) have negative wealth.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.