France_is_bacon's comments

>Talent is equally distributed

??????????????

Alrighty then.

No. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

Who would YOU think is more valuable - someone who stayed in the same job for 10 years, made 4 or 5% wage increases every year, or someone that drastically increased their income every few years. So lets take 2 people who both start at making $60,000. One of them stays in the same job and gets a 4% increase per year will make and at the end of 10 years will be making $85,398 per year. Meanwhile, person 2 switches jobs every 2 years and has 5 jobs during those 10 years, but each one new job he or she makes a lot more money at the job hire. So he (or she) like the first person also starts at $60K and does that for 2 years, then gets another job for $80K, and another 2 years gets another job for $95K, and 2 years later gets $115K, and 2 years after that makes $125K. People get hired at one rate, but as soon as they are in the system, people are more or less locked into the 4% raise per year. No company will pay a current employee as much as they will a new hire. So anyways, which candidate is more interesting to the average hiring person? The one who keeps making more money every 2 years, and switching jobs. Why? Because, wow, that person must be really worth it and companies are fighting to hire a person who most likely is a top performer, so they think. Why would someone keep hiring him at higher and higher salary if he or she is not worth it? I'm not saying that this thinking is correct. I'm not saying that there are not companies out there who still look for people who want to stay a long time. But most companies will want to hire the person who changes jobs a lot, because there is a competition that develops. Also, throughout one's 20's, people really don't expect someone that age to settle down. Once one reaches 35-ish years old, they might expect a longer stay at a company.

But, ALWAYS go for more money, all things being equal.

It reminds me of the dot com bubble in 2000. I remember clearly walking around in San Francisco, and every younger person that I saw had a scared and stunned look on their faces, realizing how most of them either were, or were going to be, screwed.

Lots of schadenfreude on my part, I must admit.

The whole conqueror of the world attitude bugged the hell out of me, when it was reallly just luck that the picked a good profession and happened to be at the "right" time to see a 400% increase in the NASDAQ, as if it was all them. I was in tech also, but it just bothered me to no end.

So of course, I see a lot of parallels, although tech workers don't seem to be quite a full of themselves now, even with the monster salaries. Emphasis on "quite."

Totally agree with Grimburger - get an office at an executive suite, or some place like that. Regus is really nice. Always in Class A buildings, totally well-appointed. Kitchen, fridge, internet. You can start working the same day you sign your lease - everything is ready to go.

You can do month-to-month to start to see how you like it.

Depends now how actually talented the raw talent is.

Tom Brady, Wayne Gretsky, Michael Jordon, Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant, Joe Montana, LaBron James. Actual top-of-the-line talent drives everything. Sure, Kobe Bryant would not win against another team if he was the only person on his side - 5 against 1, but that is not the case. While total talent is great in all positions, the super talented can't be over-estimated. Mozart. Beethoven, Einstein. Raw talent is not nothing.

>Consider that for most top law firms, if you're not coming out of the top 3 law schools they're not interested.

Yes, and this is certainly not a new phenomenon. I used to work with a recruiting department at a large upper-end law firm. They only took new associates from the top 10 universities. This was 35 years ago. So there's nothing new under the sun.

That reminds me of my experience with the cannon.

I was driving on a highway once here. And pulled off to get some gasoline. At the gas station, there was a semi truck with a huge object on it, and two military people were filling up the truck. I asked them what it was and they said that it was the cannon for the Warthog and we talked about it. I asked if they were not scared that someone would steal it from them. They laughed and said take it, that's ok. But it needs special depleted uranium rounds, so unless you can get them, how are you going to fire it? And secondly, how are you going to maneuver it around to actually use it? I asked him, in jest, that I could just strap it onto the top of my car to use it. They started laughing. They said that if you fired it, your ca would be going backwards at a high rate of speed.

My friend and I spent about 5 minutes talking to them after that.

That's my Warthog story.

Where are you going to? I was going to use Vimeo starting soon, but now, I don't think so.

So what other places exist to post videos?

Digital Ocean? https://www.digitalocean.com/solutions/streaming/

>On the pricing page Vimeo claims unlimited bandwidth for the $50/month Business plan:

I hate, hate, hate it when companies claim this, including mobile phone companies. Unlimited means unlimited. The who "Subject to fair use" is just a bullshit way of trying to say that the usage is actually NOT unlimited.

It's like getting a job at a company and they say that they will pay you $500,000 per year. But then they say that the compensation is subject to fair use, and then they start paying you $40,000 per year.

I have been a devoted follower of firefox for a long time.

However, recently I have run into a lot of situations where foxfire does not work with some of the apps I need, and chromium based browsers do work. These apps are vital to what I do, and while I prefer firefox for all the usual reasons, I cannot use it. Sad really.

OK, fine, maybe I was being a touch hyperbolic. But really, the thing is - they keep your information for forever. It's on their hard drives. There's no guarantee that what they say today, won't change tomorrow, or in 2 years, or 5 years. That's the real creepy part for me.

Right. And that would be my point. That why do people use gmail and yahoomail, etc, when they have permanent records of every single word you write, but people would be outraged if the USPS scanned every piece of mail contents and sold it to advertisers.

And again, with private shipping companies, it's not like they are going to open 100% of everything. But the large email companies can, and have it forever. Can look at it 10 years from now, if they choose.

Well, it only gives a false sense of security to people who are not paying attention. It literally says that it will give information to governments with a valid search warrant. They never have hidden that, ever. While, yes, it is true that if you send an email to a gmail, yahoo mail, hotmail, etc, those companies don't have access to all of your emails. That's the best one can hope for. They can't read my payments to the company that I lease my office from, my payments to my VOIP provider, etc. I agree with using multiple emails - I must have 8 or 10 of them. And not for nothing. One I use for only personal friends and acquaintance, so I don't get junk emails, one for only personal business accounts, one for my business accounts, some for general information, one I use as junk email when I have to fill in an email and don't know if I want to use that service, etc. And most of them are email names like [email protected].

You are right about Protonmail and Fastmail giving up info to legit governmental agency subpoenas. It's just obvious. Any company will do this, no matter what.

I chose tutanota after an extensive search, because I don't want aliases, I want completely separate email accounts, because if you have aliases, they all still come to the same exact account and I would still have to wade through all the emails. The filters really don't do it for me personally.

And tutanota was the least expensive option that I found. Emails are only $1 per month - $12 per year, while Protonmail is $5 per month after the first email address, at least that is what I remembered at the time. So that is 500% more in cost. So if I have Protonmail, it would cost me $240 per year (if paid annually, otherwise more if paid monthly) for 5 extra email accounts, while tutanota is $60 per year.

That does not work for me. The owner can just pay himself a $1.5 million salary that erases any profits, just like the movie industry is so adept at doing. They can also start other companies, and buy stuff from the other corporations in order to suck out any profits. Or maybe suck out enough so that have the smallest profit to share, and then take the money out from the other paper corporation and give themselves that money through that corporation instead. This is pretty basic business stuff. Apple Corporation, for instance, takes all of their profits and puts it into Braeburn Capital in Reno, Nevada, in order to avoid California franchise taxes, and other states as well, which has over the years, been billions and billions that would have gone to those states. California has 8 or 10% business taxes for example. Nevada has no business taxes. I think Braeburn has $150+ billion in it, or something like that. Then, of course, it can take that money and shove it out to countries with no taxes at all, so they pay no federal taxes at all, though techniques like the "double-Irish with the Dutch sandwich", which is an actual name of a scheme that corporations use. IP tax avoidance is another example - you sell all you IP (intellectual property) rights to a coporation set up in the Cayman Islands. The corporation in the USA or other countries then have to pay for the IP rights to sell those products, so they pay out to a legitimate company in the Caymans all their profits.

This is why there is a push for a global tax.

Anyways, the point is that there are a ton of ways to reduce or eliminate profits. If I was a business owner making $4 million profits, I'd reduce the profits so that each employee made an extra $1,000 to 50 employees for $50,000, they won't be squawking and bitching and are happy, or a little bit better, about the piddling amount.

Then all owners need to raise their prices while protecting their profit margins.

Or alternatively, fine, do it that way, but look at the owners' financials and wealth (not just income). If they are making $1.5 million per year, then lower that to $100,000 per year and get gold health insurance for employees, have employees work 40 hours per week instead of jaded sh-tty owners only scheduling less than 30 hours so they don't have to pay benefits and employees have to work 2 jobs, have them not treat employees like sh-t. That also works for me.

In 1965, CEOs made 20 times (2,00% more) the lowest paid worker. Now it is 300 times (30,000% more) than the lowest paid worker.

For most of the 20th century, the tax rate for the wealthiest was 70% to 90%. And this was NOT only during the war years. It was around there from 1918 to 1985, when the top rate was lowered to around 35% and stayed there since. That is about the exact time that the rich got richer, and everyone else stayed about the same, or went down, due to inflation.

And if you say that the owner took all the risk to start the business, fine, cool. Let them do all of the work without employees. I'm good with that.

What you say is yet one more specious argument to pay employees less so that owners can buy more yachts and bigger houses. But fine. Do all the work in 10 locations, all by yourself. Good. And good bye.

That is what I'm saying. Employees are NOT choosing to work, because income disparities are too high. For most of the 20th century, tax rates were from 70% to 90%. It changed to around 35% in 1986 after Reagan passed an act setting it this low. And that is when the rich started getting richer. In 1965, CEOs were making 20 times more than the lowest paid worker. Now it is 300 times more.

I say that employees should not go to work for corporations and chains, either. F them all.

I have some sympathy if the mom and pop if they barely make any money, but there are some mom and pop places out there where the mom and pop own 10 locations, which is not huge, compared to chains. But they are making $1.5 million in income per year, all the while they are making sure that employees don't work more than 30 hours per week so that they don't have to pay benefits, no health insurance, treat them like crap and not dignity. I know that all businesses don't do this, but probably 95% do, even though I have no citations for this. But I rarely read about those companies who do. And don't say many do, but nobody hears about them. No way.

And again, for the person making $5,000 per year, who cares if they go out of business. They are NOT doing it right. It is only logical that they should get a janitorial job, or work in a stock room for $30,000 per year. It's just logical. And, with making $5,000 per year, their restaurant is probably filthy, bathrooms filthy, substandard ingredients, dirty kitchen, sh-tty chairs and tables, indifferent wait staff and cooks. Again, not every single one. But if you're making $5,000, that sure is the way to bet.

Furthermore, if there are only companies like Amazon making all the sales, then that is a monopoly, and it should be broken up. Monopolies are the bad part of capitalism, and is why the government should break them up. That is what they did with AT&T in the 1980s and telecommunications really took off after that.

You are using a straw man argument.

This does not skew at all towards the coastal cities. In the coastal cities, even a two income home, with both people earning $300,000 cannot even afford a home. $50,000 would be a joke of a joke.

First thing: let me ask you this...are you a business owner and have a vested interest in keeping wages down? Or maybe your parents or friends are business owners and you sympathize with them?

This is not about whether it is a coastal or rural issue. It is about a fairness issue.

No matter what city, rural or urban, if a business owner owns 10 locations and is making $1.5 million per year, let's just say for example, and he or she is paying $7.25 per hour for a total of $14,500 per year, and with zero health insurance, only offering 30 hours per week in order not to provide benefits that they do have for full time employees, and treat employees like sh-t, F them. I don't care if $14 is a lot in a rural area. That's not the point. I know you want it to be the only point to argue, because maybe it in your best interest to argue only that point.

However, even if it is only politically/philosophically your point, like maybe you are a libertarian or something, your viewpoint is probably that employers are free to offer any wage, and employees are free to accept it or not. Well, what is happening, is that employees are not accepting in droves. And this is causing business owners to say, "No, we don't mean free offer and acceptance, what we means is we say that in order for us to not seem like the total c-nts that we are, but now that people are taking us up on that and not accepting our offers, we want to cry like the whiny b-tches that we are and complain about how people that should be working for us, are not, and now we can't make $1.5 million while paying them $14,500 per year." That's what this is really about.

And there are a lot of other false arguments. That "the owner took the risk and is entitled to the reward." Fine. Ok. Great. Do the whole thing yourself then. Perfectly fine. Go to it dude, or dudette. Knock yourself out.

Or, sometimes people say that the money is "all on paper", another shitty argument. Jeff Bezos only takes an $80K salary, and is taxed only on that. Most of his wealth is "all on paper." So, you (not you you, but those who say it is paper wealth, I don't know if you do) are telling me, seriously, that if Bezos goes into a bank, and the banker knows it is Bezos, and Bezos applies for a loan to buy a $10 million home, that the banker says, "No, you only have a salary of $80,000." That is because the "paper wealth" is actually collateral, as are all the equipment, inventory, real estate, etc. Same as any business owner.

Another fallacy is "the business owner can't re-invest if they pay out larger salaries and provide more jobs." Yeah, right. With their multi-million homes, and vacations to Gstaad, Switzerland and safaris to Africa. I haven't seen Jeff Bezos do one god damn thing with his $200 billion, except keep trying to drive his employees wages down and trying to keep them from unionizing. Yet, HE doesn't want to keep HIS salary down, and recently bought a $150 million home in Los Angeles.

And, yet another fallacy, "business owners pay 80% of taxes." Who give a fluck? They should pay a lot more. You think this is ridiculous and communist? You have been brainwashed by the all-pervasive media. If one is into MAGA - Make America Great Again - or a libertarian, or whatever, you have to realize that if you turn back the clock, for most of the 20th century, tax rates on the wealthiest in the highest tax bracket was from 70% - 90%. It changed in 1986, when Ronald Reagan got it reduced to about 35%. And that is about the exact time that the rich started getting richer and poor started getting poorer.

In 1965, CEOs in the US earned 20 times more than the average worker but by 2015 it had risen to 300 times.

The issue is a lot bigger than just what the pay is. It is about income inequality. If you don't like it to be on that topic, and how it should be only about what is 'affordable', hey, that is just your opinion, as well as the business owners, too, conveniently.

But, employees are entitled to their own opinion, and that is that business owners who don't share in the wealth can go f themselves.

And, for the little place that goes under because can't afford to pay, well, raise your prices to cover it. If that means that you have to raise the price of pasta in your restaurant from $15 to $40, then do it. But, that is hilarious, because the owner would want to just take that as well, and not pay the employees a dime of it. And if they can't raise prices to cover costs, including investing in employees, then it is the capitalist way - go the f out of business. You suck at business. You are not providing a great dining experience that customers will pay more for.

And, the more mid-sized business owners who ARE making millions per year, they also won't pay the increased prices and increased revenue to employees, in order that they can buy their yacht or whatever. Or a bigger house so that their vain spouse can brag about it at cocktail parties.

But again, let the owner do all of the work himself. That's fair enough, if employees won't work for those low wages any more, be they in rural or urban areas, whether or not they can buy a low-end house or not. Business owners can just suck a big one if they are greedy, like most are. Tax them at 90% at the top tax rate. AND, that includes wealth, like stock. Let them sell it off to pay 90% taxes, so Bezos would owe taxes of $160 billion. And again, this is not me being a socialist or communist, but what actually happened when America actually was great, from the 1918 to 1985.

Yeah. Real nice to go to the extremes. What's next on your argument list...that we should all kill ourselves and there won't be any supply and demand and therefore have a permanent solution?

No. What I am saying is that if you are only earning $5,000 per year, you should go out of business, because clearly, that person is a horrible business person. Maybe he is not doing any marketing. Maybe horrible food with substandard ingredients. Maybe he never heard of the maxim "location, location, location." Maybe he never cleans the restaurant and it is a filthy mess and has a filthy bathroom (I've been to restaurants like this, and immediately walk out - if they can't clean the bathroom, what does their kitchen look like?). Maybe he spending extravagantly on stuff that doesn't make a difference. Maybe he has too many employees.

I used to live in San Francisco, which is a real foodie town. People go out to the restaurants all the time - plenty of people, and lots and lots of small restaurants. And there were restaurants opening and closing all the time, and there were restaurants that have been open for 100 years.

The restaurant business is one of the most unforgiving industries that one can get into. But, there is no reason at all to go out of business, unless one needs to go out of business because they are a shitty business person, or if tastes and mores have changed, whatever.

Only chains and large corporations /s

Cut your projections on your revenue in half. Triple your projected expenses.

As you stated, spend as little as possible. Make every penny cry. Jeff Bezos had all his desks for himself and his employees made out of old doors put on legs - they built the desks themselves.

https://bucket.trending.com/trending/twitter/2018-01-28/the-...

Bill Gates only flew coach until 1997 when he was worth $35 billion. You think you have to ride first class? Why are you so special when Gates was riding coach until he was up to $35 billion?

Mike Tyson earned 1/3 billion dollars and blew it all and declared bankruptcy. Johnny Depp has made $500 million and almost went broke, doing shit like spending $3 million on Hunter Thompson's funeral, where he shot Thompson's ashes out of a large cannon.

You need to start earning cash immediately. Make sure you get some clients before you quit your job, if possible.

If you are really successful, don't be a douchebag - pay everyone a fantastic salary, even receptionists and data entry people, like, $80,000 minimum for everyone.

This guy was making $1 million per year, but his secretary was earning $40 and so were others, and barely making it in life. So, he paid everyone $70,000, including himself. https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-51332811 Be this guy.

Does not negate what I said. I said that the USPS does not open your mail, scan it, and sell it to the highest bidder. And, actually, the article you linked to only gives that information to government entities, which, in my post, I said that you should not worry about the government, because they have infinite resources compared to the average person.

So not too sure on your point that you're trying to make. Yeah, if there's a subpoena, I'm sure the government could open and read every single piece of mail you send or receive, but that's what I said.

But, Google or Yahoo or Facebook is not going to have access to this information. But they will if you use their email system. Why do you think they offer it for free? Through the generosity of Sergey Brinn and Larry Page's black, black hearts?