Too many spelling errors from a college student. I call shenanigans.
It's rich people all the way up!
I really wish e,players had to give a valid justification for requiring a degree. So, any jobs require one for no damn reason other than elitism.
Circle of ~~life~~ wageslavery
Under capitalism the people are a natural resource to be exploited for wealth, just like minerals, wood, and arable land.
Communism proved that in death camps you are guranteed work until the day you die.
I'm sorry I must have missed the part of Karl Marx's writings where he said all peasants must be herded into death camps?
But that's even besides the point. Communism is a complete paradigm change and very few people are asking for that. Universal Education, Healthcare, and Income are compatible with well regulated market systems. Yeah there's tankies that want a centrally planned economy run by an authoritarian figure, and there's anarchists who want everyone to slot into a commune with no higher level of governance, (thus, Communism). But calling social reforms Communism is a bad faith argument and disinformation. Don't be that guy.
The clue is in the term "Human Resources". I can't believe people just accept the existence of this phrase.
Yeah. And "human capital" is another one that just makes my skin crawl.
FWIW, there are a bunch of folks trying to shift the practice over to "People Ops", while refering to employees as actual people, which is way better. As a bonus, this gives the formerly called HR people a more meaningful scope for their work.
That said, the name or the idea does't keep some from whitewashing or running with PeopleOps as a kind of virtue signal. Consider this article that minces all of this together while making it sound normal: https://peoplemanagingpeople.com/articles/rise-of-people-ops/
Agreed, but please remember that this is the same under fascism and communism.
The final conclusion of capitalism is one solitary person holding all money. Like some crazy real life form of monopoly.
That's because the game was specifically meant to show people what capitalism does.
Unless you live in a country with free education. Or borrow from a credit union. Or work as a contractor. Other that that, very Spot On.
They don't even borrow their money to you, they were granted the right to print that money.
The wealthiest own like 87% of the stock market, which both parties refer to as "the economy"...
So while I get how the thought of a general strike where we stop working is attractive.
But if we really want to hurt the rich, it means selling all your stocks and only buying the bare necessities. Leave them holding the bag on capitalism.
I've always thought the push for "average" Americans to get into stocks was just another way for wealth to trickle up. You're not savvy for buying what Nancy Pelosi bought a month ago, you're just pumping her numbers so she makes more when she sells.
The only way to win is not to play, but enough people need to refuse to play for it to work
The wealthiest own like 87% of the stock market, which both parties refer to as “the economy”…
First, the stock market only represents publicly traded companies. Privately held companies aren't on stock exchanges. If you own stock in privately held companies there are usually very strict rules about how and when, and to whom you can sell. Its not a quick thing.
But if we really want to hurt the rich, it means selling all your stocks and only buying the bare necessities. Leave them holding the bag on capitalism.
The non-rich selling all their stock would likely help the rich. Here's why: The rich use brokerages that monitor the stock market in realtime and can trade faster. As soon as a sell off would begin, the brokerages would get in and sell most of what they had first, meaning the non-rich would get a fraction of the value of the stocks they are selling. As soon as the selling of the non-rich ended, the rich would come back into the market and buy up the same assets they had before (and more) for a fraction of the price.
Wouldn't this require that we're all selling off at the same time?
Wouldn’t this require that we’re all selling off at the same time?
Yes, which is another impossibility. However I was giving OP the benefit of the doubt.
It was a travesty that pensions were largely replaced with 401ks in the 80's in the US (curious if a similar thing happened elsewhere in the world), effectively forcing participation in the stock market to have any chance at retirement.
They found another way to shore up the continuation and capitulation to capitalism while boosting their share prices at the sane time.
What an absolute con.
Well, to be fair pensions werent like cash reserves, they were investment funds.
Which is a different issue all together.
But that's how Bernie Madoff got so much, in addition to wealthy individuals he scammed the pension funds of major cities.
Shit didn't get fucked up overnight, it was a slow progression. Which is why we can't just roll back 50 years and pretend it's solved, shit will just fuck up again.
Edit:
And even when it was a cash reserve, it was basically tied to the stock of that company.
If they went bankrupt, no pension.
So say you got a Walmart pension, it was dependant on Walmart existing till you died. If a major player was dethroned, it meant a bunch of people losing pensions. So there was still a lot of institutional momentum even back then
The only way to win is not to play
Not "playing" the stock market is a loss by default. Your money WILL devalue over time, your savings account WILL NOT keep up with inflation, and if you don't invest in stocks or have some other special financial backing/windfall, you WILL retire many years later (if at all) than you would have if you invested in stocks properly.
Though, you need to be very careful with your definition of "playing". As an individual/retail investor, buying individual stocks and trying to time ups and downs is not the way to go. If you manage to not lose any money that way, you're very very likely to make less money than if you had bought a broad market ETF like the S&P 500. In general, "playing" is bad and simply buying and holding boring funds for 30+ years can 10x your money by the time you retire, if you start young. Market up? Good, buy more! Market down 50%? It's on sale, buy more! Auto-investing is your friend. This is backed by solid math and like the entire history of the stock market.
The thing is, the rich make the rules. They want you to invest in ETFs like that because they can use your money to play their little games, inflate their wealth, and stay on top. As long as you do that, they'll make sure you make solid and consistent (over the long-term) returns, because it benefits them financially and anything else would lead to a societal collapse.
Trying to beat them at their own game by buying/selling individual stocks is a losing battle. They can see your incoming trades and act on them before your order goes through. If you find a big mistake they made, like GME, they'll simply change the rules and steal your money. It doesn't matter if it's illegal, nobody can stop them. They literally make the market.
Don't forget they raise the cost every year to match what it's gonna cost to keep you on the whole wheel in case you get ahead
*oligarchs
Show what they know. I've been highly inefficient at it.
Serfdom reinvented
If you are ever stuggling in life, you can always ~~shoplift~~ surprise civil asset forfeiture items from a corporate chain store. 😉
But you run the risk of ~~ incarceration~~ surprise litteral slavery
This ought to keep you busy enough until you die, right?
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
