If you can be compelled to produce your papers or get arrested by ICE then everyone will have to have their papers on them. ICE and leaders in this admin are also stating that they are aiming for millions of deportations.
Some of every industrial resource, seemingly for every new technology to need one. As a country it’s been like playing civ and every tech upgrade you lucked out in a resource node popping up on your territory.
I don’t know any millennials who are inheriting anything. Everyone’s boomer parents who inherited family wealth are either losing it to healthcare costs extracting everything at their end of life or (literally in at least one friends case) saying “you can’t take it with you” and burning the family wealth on luxuries while their kids struggle.
Maybe there’s a handful of ultra wealthy families tending the family wealth well but most of the middle class boomers don’t even have a concept of leaving something for future generations.
> The chart is supposed accompany an article, which explains what the metric is:
> 1. If you read the original paper[1], they seem to be doing it for weird economics reasons:
You should probably link a reference to the required extra information if you are expecting people to believe your sourced data instead of assuming they already know it.
> I don't know enough about economics to dispute this…
> In other words, not enough to change the conclusion.
If you don’t know enough about economics to dispute this, why would anyone trust your conclusion?
You’ve not changed my mind, only solidified that this is misleading data given your follow up.
I don’t see how this graph shows that claim. It says it’s graphing the effect of welfare on income ratios between top 10% vs the bottom 50% then just has an arrow pointing down saying “Stronger redistribution”
Where is the connection between the percentage being graphed and whatever their definition of “stronger redistribution” is?
And I just realized the second graph includes capital gains for the fiscal income but not for the after tax income? This just seems blatantly misleading with that detail being hidden in an asterisk.
I “own” stock through my 401k. The “own” is in scare quotes because I cannot liquidate it other than as a loan for a home, and then only with my employers permission which is an odd definition for ownership and which most of the middle class in the US is bound by.
Considering how you ignored the response to you asking
> Eh? Which tech company doesn't give RSUs to fresh grads? Startups of course give options.
I assume you are not here in good faith and just want to argue that all is well and good.
Don’t try and hide behind your second argument when your first point was contested and then act all indignant.
Edit:
Responding to
> Further see: my reply to a sibling in this same thread.
I found your other reply here[1], quoting in case you edit it
> Exactly. The original comment in this thread asked if most tech workers here are part of the capital class themselves. Which was answered by saying that if you're employed by someone else, you are part of the worker class and thus tech workers are part of the worker class.
> Introducing the fact that it's a spectrum and that equity ownership (which a vast majority of people in this industry have) makes you a capital owner is exactly my correction to that.
You are still assuming that most tech workers are given stock grants and have equity. I fundamentally disagreed with that.
I do not believe that the vast majority of people in this industry have been given equity.
Don’t try and pretend that I am wrong because I disagree with you. Show your work or be dismissed.
Eh, while you’re right on the 100% quote after I got that reaction I toned it down to versions of “using any of your political power to enact your policy goals” and “do _anything_ to hold people accountable for their crimes” and got similar levels of vitriol.
The only people I see advocating for doing anything are unfortunately extremists or insane currently, but people want some action and I think the Democrats inability to articulate what they would do and own it publicly is part of why they are so unpopular even amongst their own base.
And I literally mean the advertising and owning of actions, Biden did a fuck ton(wanted him to do more, him and Obama both failed with their Attorney General picks imo), but when it came to speaking in public the Dems were always demure.
While I am also struggling with the dems reaction to the DSA I do still think the allergy to power is a problem.
I have caused some flame wars and/or been removed from dem leaning groups by asking if a candidate or the person speaking would be willing to use 100% of the power lent to them by my vote to enact their policy goals. I didn’t even expect it to be inflammatory, but apparently being frank about power being power is inappropriate.
You are in a bubble if you are surprised at the idea of companies not giving out stock, much less RSUs specifically. While it’s common in the big tech Silicon Valley companies there are thousands of other tech companies where the most they give are options, and I must repeat with a litany of caveats that make them effectively worthless, and even more where they only pay salary and have no way to gain equity at all.
I am in a lower tier of the market than Silicon Valley and after 15 years of making over six figure salary I have not been given a single stock, and none of my employees or members of my social circles that don’t work at FAANGs have either.
Most tech workers do not get compensated with stock. A fraction of the best compensated get stock. The next tier down get options with so many caveats that they are effectively worthless, and the tier below them are straight salary with no equity even entering the horizon for them.
And yea, once you start getting actual capital and start reaping the benefits of that wealth you start being identified as a capitalist in the socialist world view.
Edit: the comment I replied to originally had this sentence at the end
> Very typical for a certain type of folk. It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.
lol, abolish the fed and only complain about Biden’s pardons. I thought I was the most the openly partisan person on this forum but apparently I have competition.
Independent agencies are not getting through recent Congresses unless the Republicans party has a total collapse and the Dems simultaneously find their balls again and stop being allergic to the use of power.
The removal of Humphrey’s executor was a goal of Project 2025, they are elated at this ruling.
> One example includes potentially seeking the overruling of Humphrey's Exec-
utor v. United States.
62 This case approved so-called independent agencies whose
directors are not removable by the President at will. The Supreme Court has
chipped away at Humphrey's Executor in cases like Seila Law v. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau,
63 but the precedent remains. The next conservative Adminis-
tration should formally take the position that Humphrey's Executor violates the
Constitution's separation of powers.[1]
Tenure. Or at least that was my experience with my comp sci teacher who required that we gave him printed out programs for our homework and then tossed them into the trash while making eye contact with you and gave you a grade later.
The schools admins told me he had tenure so there was nothing I could do.
Didn’t take me a whole year before I switched majors.