ObjectivityIncarnate

That is one horrendous logo, lol

It works in that show because the entire family are losers, and they all get mocked by all the others, regularly.

True equality, lol.

Not quite. 🤓 Humans and monkeys are both primates.

Your opportunities in life are absolutely dependent on your wealth. Those hoarding wealth are stealing opportunity from everyone.

What if the wealth you possess was created by you? Wealth isn’t zero sum, it’s created all the time (and at a rate literally not achievable simply by underpaying employees, to pre-refute the expected response). The implied premise of ‘because they have it, we don’t have it’ just doesn’t hold any water.

Also, it doesn’t really make sense to call it ‘hoarding’ when it’s largely/all invested in businesses that run within the economy. To hoard something is to keep it isolated–investments in publicly-traded companies can never truly fairly be called “hoarding”. You could only fairly call the funds kept in back accounts etc. unspent ‘hoarded’.

Uh, women graduate college at a rate much higher than men in the US, this is total bullshit, lol.

Is reading the abstract at the very beginning really that much of a burden?

Is the point meant to be that women don’t build off of their previous work as much as men? lol

Powerful

This “science meme” needs more science and less meme, imo, lol

1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.

imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.

That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.

You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.

No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.

And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?

This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.

Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.

The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.

Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.

Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol

deriving income from loans

lol

Yeah no except billionaires do exactly the thing you just said, that you already explained anyone can do, proving your point

ok

Billionaires do nothing different than anyone who takes out a HELOC on a house that appreciates in value at a rate higher than the LOC.

No one “ruined” anything or “played games”, you’re just ignorant of what’s actually being done. If your collateral happens to be something that appreciates in value faster than your loan balance does, you can do the exact same thing.

Small business loans are also all basically predicated on the exact same premise: “loan me this upfront money I need, and I can use it to make enough money to pay you back and then some”. The only difference is that I’m that case, the ‘thing that becomes more valuable’ is being created, it’s not something that exists already that’s growing in value.

loans collateralized on capital assets are treated as income under this model

As soon as someone unironically suggests that loans should be considered income, under any circumstances, you can safely stop listening to their economics takes, lol.

republikkklown

Grow up, please, lol.

The only way to fight this is to raise the minimum wage to something that is livable for the average worker.

Then what do you do when only the Amazons and Walmarts of the world with the deepest pockets can afford that, and small business basically ceases to exist, as a result? People talk a lot about ‘if you can’t pay a livable wage you don’t deserve to be in business’, but the same people also complain about monopolies and lack of choice at the same time. How do you propose this be reconciled?

Also, no one’s ever going to be able to begin to enforce a “living wage”, even if they wanted to, until that wage is given a concrete definition–at the very least, a formula with variables to account for cost of living differences across the country. Until then, all this clamoring for a “living wage” is completely pointless.

Labor is the source of all profit. How would the company make money if no one did anything?

Charge the customer more for the finished product than what it cost to produce it. Obviously.

The simple fact is that if employees were a source of profit, businesses would all try to hire as many people as they possibly could, because not doing so would literally be leaving money on the table for no reason. But obviously that is not what goes on. When a business is in trouble financially, what’s more common, a hiring freeze, or a hiring spree?