MrWestley

The problem is that those degrees don't mean anything in most professions. They are used by those with the degree to get more money and used by the employers to pay less to those that don't have them. I know in my profession I have worked to MIT grads that are just a stupid as those with no degree.

I disagree that someone making $26000/year is not contributing to society for many reasons. First, Job != Purpose. There are plenty of people who do a lot for very little money. Maybe they contribute outside of work. Second, how much you make != your contribution to society. There are people making millions that are detrimental to society. Lastly, wages are based on supply and demand. You if you the same thing that millions of other people do you will get paid less. It doesn't matter how important it is.

I don't understand what your point is. People are products of how they were raised and who they know as a result.

Yes, but this isn't a good thing. The solution isn't to make the rich poor. It is to make sure everyone else can make more.

So with all of this top x% talk that is going on I decided to see where I was on the scale. It was pretty pathetic. Not because I was low on the scale but rather very high. I don't consider myself to be very wealthy at all. Don't get me wrong I am doing well for myself. I worked hard to get what I have and I am good at what I do, but I should not be in the top 3%. I am not trying to brag, I think it is stupid and wrong that I am that high up on the scale. I'm not saying I earn too much (I am actually underpaid according the the industry i am in.) It is just that I can't believe that others are being paid that much less.

Well I have to say that initially I am not for bailing out banks. To be honest, I don't know if it is that simple. From what i understand a big reason for the bailout was to avoid the banks "problems" jumping to companies other than banks. Thus really damaging the economy. For example, just prior to the bailout BoA was about a day or two away from ceasing lending to GE. Not because anything GE did but because the shit hit the fan. In turn GE shareholder that are already scared would panic and GE stock would plummet. Needless to say that given all of the things GE has it's fingers in that trouble would spread elsewhere.

Now, have no idea if that is true, but that is something that makes the bailout less about bailing-out and more about staying afloat. If it was that is what the public should have been told.

To me all of that is speculative unless there is more information available. So unless there is more proof I will take the side that bailing out anyone or anything is usually a bad idea.

How do you tell the difference between caring about your company and being desperate?

It's when 99% of people don't use google to look up something that can be answered in 10 seconds. :)

I can say that I have mixed feelings about it because it is a very grey area. For a lot of people it is about personal responsibility. There were a LOT of people that knew better but instead choose to believe what the "big money" was saying. The catch to that is they owed it to themselves to look closer at their personal situation and asses if they could afford what they were told they could. I myself paid $215000 for a house that is now worth about $140000. If I didn't inform myself before buying the house I could have lost it. Instead I have put myself in the best situation I can. I position myself to never be "upsidedown" just by being careful. I didn't do things that other people can't. I just did my homework. Does it bother me that my house lost a tremendous amount of its value? Hell yes, but I planned for that possiblity.

My point is that for a lot of people they could have been more careful. The other side is that a lot people didn't have the means to know better. They trusted what was happening around them and it cost them. Is that there fault? Maybe, but I fell like saying they shouldn't have trusted anyone is a worse solution.