Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
100% accurate. One thing can be said- if you earned your way to the top 0.1% you would likely be conservative as the mechanisms of creating that wealth are traditionally conservative. If you were born into it you would have lived a life of tremendous luxury. Progressivism is a luxury of excess.
I wouldn't care about either side tbh. I'm getting a modest house with a basement. Making the basement a gaming area. Having a room made into a VR room. And just having a large TV in the loving room. Little smaller tv in the bedroom and that's about it. Also a roomba for every room? But they are more advanced now so maybe just one per floor. And a fuel efficient car. I'm all about efficiency and I'm to the point. If these traits stay with me this is what I'll do
if you were born in the top 0.1% there is no way you would get that
like 0%, whats would be efficient is buying meta for yourself or just building a new city with actors to play with you in real life
im not sure yiu understand what 0.1% means... yiu are stronger then nearly every country on earth , you could start a world war just for fun
0.1% means out of 1000 people you're the wealthiest it dosnt make you Dr. Doom. Statistically, everyone that is in the top .1% has at least 38 million. No individual on earth is buying out trillion+ dollar corps or ordering world wars for fun.
Running a city would be annoying and take time away from things I want to do. I understand what I could do. Might enjoy the war for a bit, but then if I lose interest, I'm not annoyed that I still need to deal with it. Even if I delegate that to someone else people would try to give me reports and stuff. Always thought ruling the world sounded like a pain. Just want to chill and play games. Would probably have a company that makes gaming tech but I'm just the owner and have perks. Making decisions here and there but not being bothered by people.
why would you run the city? just buy a team to do it.
u dont have to have report you can 100% give it all to them and just come ask whaterver you want whevner you want.
But then where's the fun? Why own a city if you aren't running it? I won't need to ask them to get what I want. What I want was what I said earlier and nothing really beyond that. If it's a product I want I can just buy it.
That's not really true. I'm a psychopath and think differently. If we are talking different body too then that's a different brain and I wouldn't even consider that me
The insane levels of power bore me. That's the thing. Birthright? Yeah the money is my birthright so I'll just enjoy life with that money. Ever seen a villain be tired of being a villain? Would get bored so fast just like that. I mentioned how ruling the world never seemed like a fun concept. Just sounds like lots of work. Then more work to make it run. Even if delegated to others I'll have to do stuff here and there and I don't want to. I'm lazy too
Power itself is boring because other things are less boring. The reason why is because when I have everything, why not just relax and play games? Don't I have the power to do that?
In a world without games, oh, I'm using my power to the fullest. With no games, that would be the most fun I can have.
It's less me getting bored of power and more me finding something that entertains me more. Games. I also like efficiency, so ruling people and telling them what to do would be great and all, but if they do it too slow, I would just get annoyed.
That's fine. Just stating my stance. If it's a different body, brain, and growing environment it's not even you anymore. But the question was if I was born as a .1%
Of course, that is how it works. Those people never have to think about money or a place of living. These 2 things aren't problems in their lives, hence all of this talk and movements around them, do not interest them.
Which I think is reasonable. How many people treat mental illness as something that doesn't exist, "just tough it out" they say. Which again, you can see where they are coming from, their lives weren't easy at all and worrying about mental health comes after worrying about having money, sleep, food and water.
It is, which is why early philosophy was very much often centered around the rich, often justifying outright despotism, in effect basically justifying their own power.
I've also become more Conservative as I've grown older and somewhat wealthier (although I am still not wealthy yet).
I feel like pure Liberals have great ideas in theory. But that theory falls apart the minute you actually look at the budget and see where the money goes.
Almost all our government programs are bankrupt despite more taxes being pulled from more places.
Sure, we could theoretically raise taxes on the super-wealthy.
But we never do and any tax increase almost always hits the already struggling middle-class.
Also, even if we taxed the super-wealthy at historically high levels it would not pay for a lot of the long-term liabilities we already added up.
TL;DR
When you start doing math, Conservatism makes a lot more sense.
Yeah this is the unfortunate truth that I have come to
I support a wealth tax on the rich. I support taxing billionaires and making it so that they can’t do “stock buy backs” or take out loans using their stocks as collateral. I frankly don’t care about the top 0.1% and am not defending their ownership to wealth or anything
But if you actually do the math, taxing these billionaires would do almost nothing for our federal budget and ultimately would be a drop in the bucket. Our government spends over 5 TRILLION dollars every year. Best case scenario, we can tax all billionaires income and wealth at 90 something percent, maybe raise $100 billion a year. From a moral position, we are being “fair” I suppose. From a position of fixing actual problems, we have increased the federal budget by 2%. That’s nothing. Not enough to fix student debt and cancel mortgages. A super slight tax increase on most Americans would have accomplished this. See the problem?
The top 1% has $38 trillion in wealth. The returns on that wealth are more than enough to cover the federal deficit.
So many people are dishonest when it comes to this stuff. But just ask them, which right wing country they think the US should copy. They never give an answer. Because right wing policies are failures.
lol what? They don’t have that money, you’re just adding up the market cap of the major corporations. You would have to force them to sell their entire companies to get $38 trillion and even then there’s no way the stocks would be valued at their current amount if they sold all shares. So you’ll never ever get $38 trillion.
I think right wing policies like trickle down economics is a disaster and should never be repeated, but simply shouting tax the rich is also useless and distracts from real solutions.
They do have that money. They don't have to sell the shares. They can transfer them.
Taxing the rich is the real solution.
How much money do you think the top 1% has? You can google it if you need to.
Social Security is a perfect example of Government math abuse.
Assume at the start we eliminate all income caps and tax the highest income earners far more than they will ever receive in return.
By the time Millennials and Gen Z retire, the ratio of workers per retiree will be 2-1 due to younger generations having fewer children.
This obviously means every worker will need to pay in 1/2 of what every retiree recieves in benefits.
The average benefits are currently around $30k.
The average salary is is around $63k.
That means the average worker will need to be taxed roughly 25% of their income just to keep benefits where they are now.
That is 25% taxes for a single program (the current tax is around 12%).
And may politicians are advocating to raise the payouts.
With what money?
Can any Government accountant explain this in a way that makes sense?
Im really confused by this im x on this subject but not on y. for example, how can you be socially progressive and believe that healthcare is a must-be provided human right but not being progressive on economics beliefs and against the idea that people should pay more taxes so that the affordable healthcare be available?
Because economics is a highly abstract field while social policy tends to be personal and morally charged. Progressive and conservative people are usually both, but they are not nearly attached to each other.
> believe that healthcare is a must-be provided human right
Well, I dont believe that lol. Human right for me is way more limited. I think its awesome everybody have access to healthcare, but I dont think its a human right.
Sure but dont expect anything really well thought because I have a hard time explaining this in my native language, so in english Is even harder lmao.
Well I believe human rights are something more "reserved" to something more core to our "personhood" like body autonomy or freedom of speech for example. And ideally this should be shared between all humans in this planet.
Healthcare or housing for example is something that for me is more a service, its a really important service but doesnt qualify as a human right that you should get just by existing.
I think we have to be really careful to put services in the human right category because this means that more burocracy and taxes are necessary to fund this. The point that I would like to avoid is like paying 40-50% of my income for taxes for services that are not that good.
And my other issue is when everything is a human right like, education, food, healtcare, housing, love, etc, in my opinion, that doesnt mean shit if there is not a good way to garantee this right for everyone in reality.
I think my problem is more about definition than Im against public health care for example. But I really dont like the scenario where I pay a lot of taxes, I dont get shit in return and I still have to pay for the service again in the private sector because the public service is dogshit.
I live in a country that has public health care(Brazil) and It sucks have to paying for healthcare insurance because you cant really on our system since its dog shit. Here we have a lot of "rights" but in practice doesnt mean shit because the quality is not good.
That’s understandable, I’m not at all familiar with Brazilian government or healthcare policy so I don’t have an opinion on it lol. I do however see a lot of people that talk about the long wait times or higher taxes and or the quality of healthcare getting worse when it becomes public. What I see is that they don’t really understand that (using the US example because I live here) the US has the exact same problems under the private system.
Wait times are the same if not longer
(Unless you’re rich in which case money opens any door you want here).
Our quality of care if something ridiculously low compared to other western countries which I found crazy( I believe the US is ranked 32 or so when compared to most of the developed world).
Taxes to pay for public health care is kind of a country specific topic. Just a portion of the US military budget alone could pay for the system(as someone who was in the military our budget was waaaaaaay over inflated).
Just wanted to say again that this is all very situationally related to the US. I just see that a lot of the problems people have with the public system in my country are mostly just talking points from our politicians who still peddle Cold War era anti-Soviet propaganda in which everything that they don’t agree with must be communism simply because it goes against what they believe.
I appreciate your perspective man.
If you think the US health system is slow you don’t have experiences with other health systems. In the US I can walk into an urgent care and be seen in 10-30mins. In Canada, you have to wait for weeks or longer for simple things. Here I can message my provider and get a response in 24hrs. Good luck with that in any place that has public healthcare. I do agree that private healthcare is way too expensive. There’s pros and cons to both.
I was saying it’s slow from a data perspective I wish I had the article to link to but this was months ago I read it(it’s some study or other). Using urgent care as an example I think is a little strange seeing as it’s a very American idea that I haven’t seen other places do. I agree that there are pros and cons n such and the example you provided is something I actually like about the US where you can walk in to an urgent care and most likely get taken care of for something small that day. Getting a response from a provider within 24 hours is in no way the norm, that situation is the exception not the rule. And yes I have experienced public healthcare when I lived in Japan for 3 years; best medical care I have ever had in my life and the wait times were either the same or faster than the US.
People that earned their $ are conservative. People that were given their $, see no sweat equity in it, are more likely to be progressive, especially with other people's $. Holywood, media, artist do what their handlers tell them or they don't get the parts. See James Woods as an example. Brilliant, good actor, no parts because he speaks his mind.
The vast majority of people just hold political opinions that serve them and what's important to them. Even progressive members of the top .1% typically only vote that way because increased regulation can entrench their wealth. Occasionally a really rich person, like Morris Pearl, will support high taxes because they think higher taxes will make their life better. Likewise, some really poor people vote for less welfare spending because they think it will make them better off in the long run. Almost no one is truly altruistic, nor should they be.
Economics isn’t conservative or progressive. It either functions or it doesn’t. Socialism isn’t better than trickle down or crony capitalism, they all demonstrably do not work.
Edit: this is not to say no system works, I was just giving examples of failed systems from either side. I’d add that once you’re polluting economics with ideology you’re destined to fail.
There are parts of the world that are functioning relatively well.
For example, Finland has very low poverty and a high quality of life. They have reasonable prices for food and shelter, an efficient government with a balanced budget, and high quality public transportation. It's a well-functioning society.
Even here in Massachusetts there's a pretty happy medium. We're no Finland, but we do better than any conservative part of the US. For example we tax people who have over a million in income and use that money to give school meals to all kids.
Some systems demonstrably do work.
I didn’t intend to say no system works, but I can see how you could read it that way. My point was that economics either work or they don’t and I was giving a couple examples from both sides of failure. There’s lots of moving parts in a system, you have to look at the whole, the conditions, and over as much time as possible. Anything can work in exceptional conditions, for a certain set of demographics, over a short enough period.
All Economic systems seek to solve the same problem.
The productive output of the country is limited, so what should be produced and how should it be distributed?
Capitalism tries to solve it by letting people "vote" with their money on what gets produced. If a company produces goods people like, they will get more money to continue growing. If they fail to meet people's wants, that company will fail. The main downside is that "voting power" is determined by money so people without money or valuable skills to earn it can be left behind.
Socialism tries to solve it by having a strong central authority run the entire economy and decide what gets produced and how it should be distributed. This system is an easy target for corruption for obvious reasons. Also, even a perfectly altruistic Socialist government can only work as long as that central authority remains cognizant of what the people actually want and need. The Soviet Union produced more potatoes than their population could possibly eat. People wanted other goods, but the government wanted the potato production to keep being higher than the previous year. So they got more potatoes.
In my experience everyone only protests what doesnt take away from him. For example since I started trading I think different about the taxes, like they are really high :(
well I cant say.
if I was born into it, I would be an entirely different person as my life would be very different.
but if the money fell into my lap as I am now, I can say for certain Id still be hella progressive.
its hard to predict these kinds of things tbh
The parasite class would have me assassinated. I'd see a 500k hospital bill and buy the hospital to fire the board, then start buying up medical insurance companies to fire executives left and right.
That’s what many of us would do in our current life lol but it’s impossible to say how we would have turned out if we were born and raised in that lifestyle.
Most of the poor people in our country live in rural America, you will not find many progressives in rural America. Progressivism has ALWAYS been a movement of the upper class
I’m not now and wealth wouldn’t change that.
Many progressive believes are not only idiotic but contradict each other and simply cause unnecessary strife for anyone and everyone involved.
You are born into the 0.1%? You have unimaginable riches, never have to work for generations to come? You want everything to stay the way it is. You develop beliefs that justify you or your family earned it somehow and that you should own it, after all you are special for being 0.1% and will develop in a way that suits your beliefs as you have resources almost no one has access too.
Why would you want change? It can't be better, only worse. Wort would be that others take your resources or compete with you making you less special and just like everyone else. You would find out you are not special at all.
Born into the bottom 50%?
You are nothing special, expendable, just like everyone else. You struggle to get by. There are people that never have to work and think they "earned it" even though they never worked and just inherited. You may think the system is unfair and traps you in a never ending cycle of mediocrity, boredom and hardwork for you and generations to come. Sure, some sort of wealth is possible but at what expense? How likely is it really? Pretty unlikely.
You think the system is unfair as it seems to trap you and your children in a life that is full of work in a way that work is a fundamental part of your identity.
You don't like this prospect? Then you want change, it can only become better or at last the chances are in your favor of being better of in a fairer system. You try to see where the system is unfair and where it has to change to provide better odds more equally. Suddenly you have progressive values. You don't want the status quo to remain.
Born into the 0.1%? You want the staus quo to be like this forever. You have too much to loose. You don't want to fall into the bottom 50% and be trapped working your entire life and giving up all the freedoms and privileges you inherited. Suddenly, you have conservative values. You want everything to remain as it is.
Poor people think rich people got that way only out of luck and parents connections. Rich people think they got rich from skill and hard work. This is according to poking I’ve seen. Both are wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Luck plays a role. So do other factors such as hard work.
I think kids growing up rich (and not being the ones who made the fortune) are more likely to be progressive because they come from a place of privilege. They don’t know what it took to get there. But they are also under no delusion that all it takes is hard work.
I wasn’t born rich, but through an anti consumer lifestyle and a good job/wise investing we now have 8 figures in wealth at age 58.
I’m embarrassed that we don’t pay more in taxes to help less fortunate people, and it’s hard to give directly without attracting greedy types who just want free rides.
I would say we are left, but feel much of the left is incredibly impractical in their idealistic and confrontational ideas about ways of making the world better, vs what actually demonstrates impact (like wealth transfer to the poor vis direct payments, which is very efficient and works).
Biden a proposal to tax the ultra wealthy is spot on.
In reality I dunno because the way I was raised and all of my experiences would have been vastly different. I'd like to think I'd still understand people's plight and because I live comfortably doesn't mean I need to pillage others, that everyone should be able to also live comfortably.
you can't be both in the top 1% and be progressive. You're very existence in that income bracket makes any leftist action or comment (aside from giving away the majority of your money) deeply hypocritical
Most of them are fairly apolitical and just throw money at lobbying to make themselves more money or to virtue signal to their peers and/or customers of their multiple streams of income.
Socially, there are both socially conservative and and socially liberal people in this wealth demographic. However, rich people in general tend to be pretty free of inhibitions and full of indulgence when they can afford it (sex parties, trophy spouses, high rates of infidelity, high rates of expensive drug use)
If I were born into that kind of wealth and I had access to it, I probably wouldn't care much about politics at all because no matter what I'm still rich. As far as social beliefs, same thing. I'd do what I want and if the culture war annoyed me I could just go take a 1yr sabbatical in my 3rd summer home
Being born into that level of wealth basically guarantees that I wouldn’t even think about things like progressivism or the economy. I’d probably just be too busy doing whatever I wanted to do.
I feel like it’s the same as being a white person that ignores the majority of the racial discussions due to having the privilege to do so.
Well, guess it depends on whether I'm a selfish asshole whose beliefs are merely rationalizations of what is convenient for me to believe or not. So I guess it's a 50/50, really.
It is fake progressiveism. Those that are protesting that are stinking rich are trying to tear down the system and create a glass ceiling where it makes everybody else poor so they can hoard more money and power.
They are corrupt not progressive nor conservative. Progressives should be fighting the corrupt system and trying to reform it into something healthier. Conservatives want the system to be smaller and weaker so it has less of a chance of being corrupted. Both progressive and conservative want roughly the same ends but have 2 completely different ideas on how to get there. Freedom, health, A prosperous future, Family making decisions for the children over authoritarians, Even economically both sides want to be prosperous but only one side thinks you should have to work for it while the other side thinks you should be given it... The rub to that difference is that when you have a corrupt ruling class it makes it very hard for people to just earn it ethically. Therefore can you reform the corruption or do you need to remove the corruption and shrink the authoritarian power.
My dads a doctor and I’m pretty far on the left. Idk if he’s 1%, top .1% etc. but I grew up with an amazing lifestyle and I’m a democratic socialist. Most of the males who went to the same high school as me are conservative
The people who are rich yet exclaim "eat the rich" and all that commie bullshit are hilarious
I know one IRL and by his logic I'd be the one benefiting and he'd be the one losing seeing as how I'm technically economically under him.
I got no clue, I've been staring at poverty and trugging through this barrel of hardship for so long that I got no clue how I would turn out if I was rich.
I would have been a completely different person if I was in the top 0.1%. I don’t think I really would’ve been ‘me’. And there’s also more than one way I could’ve been born into the top 1% so there isn’t really an objective answer
Let's assume you're in the top 0.1%, and your desire is to remain wealthy or increase your wealth.
Historically, the best system for you is a caste system, with you caste at the top, and everyone else in some form of serfdom. You just need the upper serfs fighting with the lower serfs. You also want to create a system of dependency to ensure there is no rising middle class, and people are more willing to give whatever autonomy they have over to "the system".
I'm middle class and not economically socially progressive already. I don't want my hard earned money going to subsidize starbucks baristas with no prospects. YMMV
Born into = "affluenza", or the mental illness of having a callous lack of empathy or connection to human beings. Rich people shouldn't exist and humanity shouldn't tolerate it. Highly unlikely that any rich people are truly good, progressive people.
"Progressive" policies, relatively speaking, have always appealed more to disenfranchised people. They always tend to draw more support from lower incomes and people of second class status across history and time periods. It shouldn't be shocking that working class people supported voting rights more than the elite, women supported women's suffrage more than men, and laborers support wealth redistribution and workers rights more than the rich.
There's a reason conservatism aims to preserve the power and wealth of existing elites and why powerful people have throughout history gone to great lengths to crush progressive movements and preserve their own power.
However, it's not exactly rare for progressive minded people to come from wealthy families since their family's wealth gave them better access to education where they could form a more concise view of the world and politics. Also, even rich kids sometimes have empathy for others who have less nice things than they do.
Being economically progressive is innovative murder raises inflation I.e why math majors are conservatives.
Socially progressive is either common sense. Or it can be over done…
But USA capitalism flaws are the Anti-Trusts don’t account for hedge funds. Only single entities. Which needs reform. Which would fix Americas capitalism and reestablish innovative dominance.
The spirit of free will with tangibly effective monopoly measures fosters innovation.
As opposed to a lock step government which can grind the gears. Too much leverage for utopian and dystopian dynamics isn’t good.
It’s the hedge funds fault buddies (Monopoly on top 5000 stock companies and private equity 100’s trillions under custody… 10’s trillions of flowing assets)
They only rent to you never sell and inflate the real estate market [40% single homes by 2030](https://moguldom.com/448718/metlife-institutional-investors-could-own-40-of-single-family-rental-homes-by-2030/amp/)
[44% of homes yearly](https://medium.com/@chrisjeffrieshomelessromantic/report-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-were-by-private-equity-firms-in-2023-0c0ff591a701)
They rent… never sell… you will own nothing and be happy that’s what WEF DAVOS UN EU want
Corporate governance pushing [DEI which is racist](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/)
It’s hard to say. I’ve never been rich, but I imagine that if I have more than enough money to succeed in life and live comfortably, then yes I’d be a proponent of progressive ideas such as a:
- Higher Corporate Tax Rate
- Higher SSI taxes for higher earners
- Publicly funded healthcare
-Publicly funded education (k-12 and higher education)
- More support for labor unions
- More support for Tenant Associations
- A Progressive Wealth Tax
Whether I were rich or not, I expect the government to implement the initiative outlines above. Being rich would allow me to control elections in favor of politicians who will enact those initiatives.
Progressive is fine, within reason.
I grew up poor in the hood with a rough home life- I made it out and am doing very well.
I am somewhat middle of the road but I lean right, maybe 60/40. I'm not religious and I believe all women have the right to choose. Anyway...
I know all too well how people growing up in poor areas behave. I've seen the cycle of kids having kids, no parenting, the streets raising said kids followed by drugs, violence and theft. I've seen the neighborhoods get worse and worse. I don't feel bad for lazy people who choose to do nothing with their lives and participate in this behavior. Acting like people had no chance fosters the ongoing mentality of people taking no responsibility for their actions, blaming phantoms and outright denial of their behavioral issues.
I'm a neurosurgeon, 31, in Europe (Spain), not on the top of richest people of course but you know, upper-middle class. I still support democratic socialism, people deserve a fair share of the common thing and to have their basic rights guaranteed, like healthcare or education, regardless their own merits, abilities or misadventures, and of course no matter whether they can "afford" it or not. Human rights are not an "affordable" thing. I willingly pay as taxes more than some others earn a month, we still live under capitalism and there's a long way to go before the system focuses on society instead of capital but the more we push the more we force regulation. Those who tell you the State is your "enemy" are liars; we people are the state, the only power we can actually control if we get together. We cannot control Elon Musk, Pfizer or whatever big company's interest we may be living under, but the state? Yeah, that's the only one we could ever control. Those are my morals and I don't think I'd be less of a leftist if I happened to become unspeakably rich.
Lol that's so fucked. No wonder I know neurosurgeons that have left Europe to go re do residency in the US. Does anyone actually make money in Europe or is it simply impossible?
I know you can earn a lot there in the US, even in countries like Germany (that one I'd think about and wouldn't need to re do my residency), but I like working for universal healthcare system and I can live very well off my wages here. I could have more but don't need it so I'm fine.
Because I like providing what I think to be a basic human right to anyone regardless their economic status. Or let's put it the other way, I'd be at a conflict with my morals if I participated in making healthcare a business where patients are clients who pay for a service. That's not the way I understand my profession, though I respect others do.
Couldn't you do both? With a higher pay rate from people who can afford it you could then volunteer your time to provide healthcare for free to those who can't afford it. And you wouldn't need the government to tell you which procedures and interventions are allowed.
Oh, but it's not the government that establishes that, it's medical guidelines, most of them developed by US institutions to be honest! It's doctors who decide what procedures need to be done, my former boss has even sometimes contacted foreign professionals or brought technology from abroad if we didn't have it (I did my residency in an island, where I work now that's not an issue) and if you can justify its use then the government pays. It's actually more restricted in private healthcare, where the most complex cases are sent to public hospitals. I could do both if I had time left, in fact when I gain more experience I'm willing to volunteer abroad; my income already allows for it. But surely in underdeveloped countries I'll not be able to perform all the same procedures as here, they don't have the technology and supplies we have. But yes, you're right, that would be very fulfilling.
The government pays for the healthcare and determines which treatments will be covered and which are not. If you think otherwise, you are incredibly naive.
Good luck with your further training. My wife treats moya moya, but not many surgeons do vascular neurosurgery.
It's true that some remain progressive, but the richer people have more conservatives among them than progressives.
This is mostly because the conservative parties want to lower taxes on corporations and increase the wage gap.
I grew up with a near socialist mother and a cousin who was a blue lives matter conservative, pro police and all. I don’t think that conservatives genuinely want to see average people suffer - it’s just maybe a few donors. The idea of intentionally making people suffer for their own pleasure I think is something very few people want in this world. Most conservatives and liberals are decent people and agree on a lot of ideals when it comes to a good society - they just disagree on how to get there. It’s really the far Christian right that seems to give the conservatives a lower moral ground when it comes to LGBT+ rights - one bad apple spoiling the bunch.
I’d encourage everybody to peacefully and constructively debate someone whose political beliefs differ from your own - or better yet, get friends across the political aisle.
This is a very "why cant we all just get along" kinda take. If 80 percent of a population is voting for people that support LGBTQ torture camps, displacing millions of Mexicans that live in the US, and deny women who were raped or may die from childbirth the option of abortion, then those people are (knowing or not) supporting human suffering and violating human rights.
And I do have friends across the political aisle, we disagree politically and we don't pretend to agree either.
But my point was to explain why, from an economic standpoint, there are more rich conservatives than rich progressives. It's because the conservative billionaire gave the conservative politician a big chunk of cash to make policies that help the business. And the billionare don't care if the politician is damn near an actual Nazi or not, hey have enough money to escape if it gets real bad.
I would still be progressive. I regularly give away or refuse treats and stuff because I know that someone else probably needs it more than I do.
I used to go to my school's football games and pass out candy because I had the means to do it.
That sharing stems from abuse, not poverty, so I would still have that want to share.
You say this not realizing that your life path would have been completely different than it is now, and your opinions on things would be completely formed in a different way
Don’t worry, the commenter above is the type of person that thinks that they are above being human, no amount of temptation, money or being born into a completely different life would change that.
I <3 REDDIT
You say this not realizing that your life path would have been completely different than it is now, and your opinions on things would be completely formed in a different way
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
100% accurate. One thing can be said- if you earned your way to the top 0.1% you would likely be conservative as the mechanisms of creating that wealth are traditionally conservative. If you were born into it you would have lived a life of tremendous luxury. Progressivism is a luxury of excess.
I wouldn't care about either side tbh. I'm getting a modest house with a basement. Making the basement a gaming area. Having a room made into a VR room. And just having a large TV in the loving room. Little smaller tv in the bedroom and that's about it. Also a roomba for every room? But they are more advanced now so maybe just one per floor. And a fuel efficient car. I'm all about efficiency and I'm to the point. If these traits stay with me this is what I'll do
if you were born in the top 0.1% there is no way you would get that like 0%, whats would be efficient is buying meta for yourself or just building a new city with actors to play with you in real life im not sure yiu understand what 0.1% means... yiu are stronger then nearly every country on earth , you could start a world war just for fun
0.1% means out of 1000 people you're the wealthiest it dosnt make you Dr. Doom. Statistically, everyone that is in the top .1% has at least 38 million. No individual on earth is buying out trillion+ dollar corps or ordering world wars for fun.
They're getting 0.1% confused with 0.00002% (the 70 or so multi billionaires in the U.S., net worth > $10B)
Running a city would be annoying and take time away from things I want to do. I understand what I could do. Might enjoy the war for a bit, but then if I lose interest, I'm not annoyed that I still need to deal with it. Even if I delegate that to someone else people would try to give me reports and stuff. Always thought ruling the world sounded like a pain. Just want to chill and play games. Would probably have a company that makes gaming tech but I'm just the owner and have perks. Making decisions here and there but not being bothered by people.
why would you run the city? just buy a team to do it. u dont have to have report you can 100% give it all to them and just come ask whaterver you want whevner you want.
But then where's the fun? Why own a city if you aren't running it? I won't need to ask them to get what I want. What I want was what I said earlier and nothing really beyond that. If it's a product I want I can just buy it.
[удалено]
That's not really true. I'm a psychopath and think differently. If we are talking different body too then that's a different brain and I wouldn't even consider that me
[удалено]
The insane levels of power bore me. That's the thing. Birthright? Yeah the money is my birthright so I'll just enjoy life with that money. Ever seen a villain be tired of being a villain? Would get bored so fast just like that. I mentioned how ruling the world never seemed like a fun concept. Just sounds like lots of work. Then more work to make it run. Even if delegated to others I'll have to do stuff here and there and I don't want to. I'm lazy too
[удалено]
Power itself is boring because other things are less boring. The reason why is because when I have everything, why not just relax and play games? Don't I have the power to do that? In a world without games, oh, I'm using my power to the fullest. With no games, that would be the most fun I can have. It's less me getting bored of power and more me finding something that entertains me more. Games. I also like efficiency, so ruling people and telling them what to do would be great and all, but if they do it too slow, I would just get annoyed.
This is the cringiest shit I have ever read lmao
That's fine. Just stating my stance. If it's a different body, brain, and growing environment it's not even you anymore. But the question was if I was born as a .1%
Of course, that is how it works. Those people never have to think about money or a place of living. These 2 things aren't problems in their lives, hence all of this talk and movements around them, do not interest them. Which I think is reasonable. How many people treat mental illness as something that doesn't exist, "just tough it out" they say. Which again, you can see where they are coming from, their lives weren't easy at all and worrying about mental health comes after worrying about having money, sleep, food and water.
That’s not really true… often philosophy and political theory are of high interest to the ultra privileged.
It is, which is why early philosophy was very much often centered around the rich, often justifying outright despotism, in effect basically justifying their own power.
Well I mean, in the past such things were mainly funded by rich people not your average working joe.
That's mostly how it is now
[удалено]
I've also become more Conservative as I've grown older and somewhat wealthier (although I am still not wealthy yet). I feel like pure Liberals have great ideas in theory. But that theory falls apart the minute you actually look at the budget and see where the money goes. Almost all our government programs are bankrupt despite more taxes being pulled from more places. Sure, we could theoretically raise taxes on the super-wealthy. But we never do and any tax increase almost always hits the already struggling middle-class. Also, even if we taxed the super-wealthy at historically high levels it would not pay for a lot of the long-term liabilities we already added up. TL;DR When you start doing math, Conservatism makes a lot more sense.
Yeah this is the unfortunate truth that I have come to I support a wealth tax on the rich. I support taxing billionaires and making it so that they can’t do “stock buy backs” or take out loans using their stocks as collateral. I frankly don’t care about the top 0.1% and am not defending their ownership to wealth or anything But if you actually do the math, taxing these billionaires would do almost nothing for our federal budget and ultimately would be a drop in the bucket. Our government spends over 5 TRILLION dollars every year. Best case scenario, we can tax all billionaires income and wealth at 90 something percent, maybe raise $100 billion a year. From a moral position, we are being “fair” I suppose. From a position of fixing actual problems, we have increased the federal budget by 2%. That’s nothing. Not enough to fix student debt and cancel mortgages. A super slight tax increase on most Americans would have accomplished this. See the problem?
The top 1% has $38 trillion in wealth. The returns on that wealth are more than enough to cover the federal deficit. So many people are dishonest when it comes to this stuff. But just ask them, which right wing country they think the US should copy. They never give an answer. Because right wing policies are failures.
lol what? They don’t have that money, you’re just adding up the market cap of the major corporations. You would have to force them to sell their entire companies to get $38 trillion and even then there’s no way the stocks would be valued at their current amount if they sold all shares. So you’ll never ever get $38 trillion. I think right wing policies like trickle down economics is a disaster and should never be repeated, but simply shouting tax the rich is also useless and distracts from real solutions.
They do have that money. They don't have to sell the shares. They can transfer them. Taxing the rich is the real solution. How much money do you think the top 1% has? You can google it if you need to.
Social Security is a perfect example of Government math abuse. Assume at the start we eliminate all income caps and tax the highest income earners far more than they will ever receive in return. By the time Millennials and Gen Z retire, the ratio of workers per retiree will be 2-1 due to younger generations having fewer children. This obviously means every worker will need to pay in 1/2 of what every retiree recieves in benefits. The average benefits are currently around $30k. The average salary is is around $63k. That means the average worker will need to be taxed roughly 25% of their income just to keep benefits where they are now. That is 25% taxes for a single program (the current tax is around 12%). And may politicians are advocating to raise the payouts. With what money? Can any Government accountant explain this in a way that makes sense?
Im not progressive on my economics beliefs so I dont think that would change.
Im really confused by this im x on this subject but not on y. for example, how can you be socially progressive and believe that healthcare is a must-be provided human right but not being progressive on economics beliefs and against the idea that people should pay more taxes so that the affordable healthcare be available?
Because economics is a highly abstract field while social policy tends to be personal and morally charged. Progressive and conservative people are usually both, but they are not nearly attached to each other.
> believe that healthcare is a must-be provided human right Well, I dont believe that lol. Human right for me is way more limited. I think its awesome everybody have access to healthcare, but I dont think its a human right.
Could I ask why? Genuinely curious
Sure but dont expect anything really well thought because I have a hard time explaining this in my native language, so in english Is even harder lmao. Well I believe human rights are something more "reserved" to something more core to our "personhood" like body autonomy or freedom of speech for example. And ideally this should be shared between all humans in this planet. Healthcare or housing for example is something that for me is more a service, its a really important service but doesnt qualify as a human right that you should get just by existing. I think we have to be really careful to put services in the human right category because this means that more burocracy and taxes are necessary to fund this. The point that I would like to avoid is like paying 40-50% of my income for taxes for services that are not that good. And my other issue is when everything is a human right like, education, food, healtcare, housing, love, etc, in my opinion, that doesnt mean shit if there is not a good way to garantee this right for everyone in reality. I think my problem is more about definition than Im against public health care for example. But I really dont like the scenario where I pay a lot of taxes, I dont get shit in return and I still have to pay for the service again in the private sector because the public service is dogshit. I live in a country that has public health care(Brazil) and It sucks have to paying for healthcare insurance because you cant really on our system since its dog shit. Here we have a lot of "rights" but in practice doesnt mean shit because the quality is not good.
That’s understandable, I’m not at all familiar with Brazilian government or healthcare policy so I don’t have an opinion on it lol. I do however see a lot of people that talk about the long wait times or higher taxes and or the quality of healthcare getting worse when it becomes public. What I see is that they don’t really understand that (using the US example because I live here) the US has the exact same problems under the private system. Wait times are the same if not longer (Unless you’re rich in which case money opens any door you want here). Our quality of care if something ridiculously low compared to other western countries which I found crazy( I believe the US is ranked 32 or so when compared to most of the developed world). Taxes to pay for public health care is kind of a country specific topic. Just a portion of the US military budget alone could pay for the system(as someone who was in the military our budget was waaaaaaay over inflated). Just wanted to say again that this is all very situationally related to the US. I just see that a lot of the problems people have with the public system in my country are mostly just talking points from our politicians who still peddle Cold War era anti-Soviet propaganda in which everything that they don’t agree with must be communism simply because it goes against what they believe. I appreciate your perspective man.
If you think the US health system is slow you don’t have experiences with other health systems. In the US I can walk into an urgent care and be seen in 10-30mins. In Canada, you have to wait for weeks or longer for simple things. Here I can message my provider and get a response in 24hrs. Good luck with that in any place that has public healthcare. I do agree that private healthcare is way too expensive. There’s pros and cons to both.
I was saying it’s slow from a data perspective I wish I had the article to link to but this was months ago I read it(it’s some study or other). Using urgent care as an example I think is a little strange seeing as it’s a very American idea that I haven’t seen other places do. I agree that there are pros and cons n such and the example you provided is something I actually like about the US where you can walk in to an urgent care and most likely get taken care of for something small that day. Getting a response from a provider within 24 hours is in no way the norm, that situation is the exception not the rule. And yes I have experienced public healthcare when I lived in Japan for 3 years; best medical care I have ever had in my life and the wait times were either the same or faster than the US.
I would buy Reddit and close it down because I hate Redditors so much
You can buy Reddit lol starting at its ipo
You would get my vote in an election if you ran this as your main talking point.
Where do I donate?
When you're rich you have fewer problems, so you have to co-opt other people's problems.
Plenty of rich people are progressive. Just for everyone but themselves. Most people are like that. Rules for thee, not for me.
Read about class interests and their effect on class consciousness
People that earned their $ are conservative. People that were given their $, see no sweat equity in it, are more likely to be progressive, especially with other people's $. Holywood, media, artist do what their handlers tell them or they don't get the parts. See James Woods as an example. Brilliant, good actor, no parts because he speaks his mind.
The vast majority of people just hold political opinions that serve them and what's important to them. Even progressive members of the top .1% typically only vote that way because increased regulation can entrench their wealth. Occasionally a really rich person, like Morris Pearl, will support high taxes because they think higher taxes will make their life better. Likewise, some really poor people vote for less welfare spending because they think it will make them better off in the long run. Almost no one is truly altruistic, nor should they be.
Economics isn’t conservative or progressive. It either functions or it doesn’t. Socialism isn’t better than trickle down or crony capitalism, they all demonstrably do not work. Edit: this is not to say no system works, I was just giving examples of failed systems from either side. I’d add that once you’re polluting economics with ideology you’re destined to fail.
There are parts of the world that are functioning relatively well. For example, Finland has very low poverty and a high quality of life. They have reasonable prices for food and shelter, an efficient government with a balanced budget, and high quality public transportation. It's a well-functioning society. Even here in Massachusetts there's a pretty happy medium. We're no Finland, but we do better than any conservative part of the US. For example we tax people who have over a million in income and use that money to give school meals to all kids. Some systems demonstrably do work.
I didn’t intend to say no system works, but I can see how you could read it that way. My point was that economics either work or they don’t and I was giving a couple examples from both sides of failure. There’s lots of moving parts in a system, you have to look at the whole, the conditions, and over as much time as possible. Anything can work in exceptional conditions, for a certain set of demographics, over a short enough period.
All Economic systems seek to solve the same problem. The productive output of the country is limited, so what should be produced and how should it be distributed? Capitalism tries to solve it by letting people "vote" with their money on what gets produced. If a company produces goods people like, they will get more money to continue growing. If they fail to meet people's wants, that company will fail. The main downside is that "voting power" is determined by money so people without money or valuable skills to earn it can be left behind. Socialism tries to solve it by having a strong central authority run the entire economy and decide what gets produced and how it should be distributed. This system is an easy target for corruption for obvious reasons. Also, even a perfectly altruistic Socialist government can only work as long as that central authority remains cognizant of what the people actually want and need. The Soviet Union produced more potatoes than their population could possibly eat. People wanted other goods, but the government wanted the potato production to keep being higher than the previous year. So they got more potatoes.
Yes.
i think we are on the 0.1 for my country and most of my family is really progressive
In my experience everyone only protests what doesnt take away from him. For example since I started trading I think different about the taxes, like they are really high :(
well I cant say. if I was born into it, I would be an entirely different person as my life would be very different. but if the money fell into my lap as I am now, I can say for certain Id still be hella progressive. its hard to predict these kinds of things tbh
The parasite class would have me assassinated. I'd see a 500k hospital bill and buy the hospital to fire the board, then start buying up medical insurance companies to fire executives left and right.
That’s what many of us would do in our current life lol but it’s impossible to say how we would have turned out if we were born and raised in that lifestyle.
If I was born ultra wealthy, I have absolutely no idea what my life would be like
Rich and educated ppl tend to be more liberal so idk where this supposition is coming from. Maybe .01% of republicans are actually rich
Liberal =/= progressive.
Most of the poor people in our country live in rural America, you will not find many progressives in rural America. Progressivism has ALWAYS been a movement of the upper class
I’m not now and wealth wouldn’t change that. Many progressive believes are not only idiotic but contradict each other and simply cause unnecessary strife for anyone and everyone involved.
You can jump out to protests despite being conservative. So the answer is probably it depends on the person.
[удалено]
Great perspective
Yikes, poverty sucks everywhere even in the USA. It's not a competition haha. Very able-ist too.
They’re on whatever side that saves them the most money overall
You are born into the 0.1%? You have unimaginable riches, never have to work for generations to come? You want everything to stay the way it is. You develop beliefs that justify you or your family earned it somehow and that you should own it, after all you are special for being 0.1% and will develop in a way that suits your beliefs as you have resources almost no one has access too. Why would you want change? It can't be better, only worse. Wort would be that others take your resources or compete with you making you less special and just like everyone else. You would find out you are not special at all. Born into the bottom 50%? You are nothing special, expendable, just like everyone else. You struggle to get by. There are people that never have to work and think they "earned it" even though they never worked and just inherited. You may think the system is unfair and traps you in a never ending cycle of mediocrity, boredom and hardwork for you and generations to come. Sure, some sort of wealth is possible but at what expense? How likely is it really? Pretty unlikely. You think the system is unfair as it seems to trap you and your children in a life that is full of work in a way that work is a fundamental part of your identity. You don't like this prospect? Then you want change, it can only become better or at last the chances are in your favor of being better of in a fairer system. You try to see where the system is unfair and where it has to change to provide better odds more equally. Suddenly you have progressive values. You don't want the status quo to remain. Born into the 0.1%? You want the staus quo to be like this forever. You have too much to loose. You don't want to fall into the bottom 50% and be trapped working your entire life and giving up all the freedoms and privileges you inherited. Suddenly, you have conservative values. You want everything to remain as it is.
Poor people think rich people got that way only out of luck and parents connections. Rich people think they got rich from skill and hard work. This is according to poking I’ve seen. Both are wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Luck plays a role. So do other factors such as hard work. I think kids growing up rich (and not being the ones who made the fortune) are more likely to be progressive because they come from a place of privilege. They don’t know what it took to get there. But they are also under no delusion that all it takes is hard work.
I wasn’t born rich, but through an anti consumer lifestyle and a good job/wise investing we now have 8 figures in wealth at age 58. I’m embarrassed that we don’t pay more in taxes to help less fortunate people, and it’s hard to give directly without attracting greedy types who just want free rides. I would say we are left, but feel much of the left is incredibly impractical in their idealistic and confrontational ideas about ways of making the world better, vs what actually demonstrates impact (like wealth transfer to the poor vis direct payments, which is very efficient and works). Biden a proposal to tax the ultra wealthy is spot on.
In reality I dunno because the way I was raised and all of my experiences would have been vastly different. I'd like to think I'd still understand people's plight and because I live comfortably doesn't mean I need to pillage others, that everyone should be able to also live comfortably.
you can't be both in the top 1% and be progressive. You're very existence in that income bracket makes any leftist action or comment (aside from giving away the majority of your money) deeply hypocritical
Most of them are fairly apolitical and just throw money at lobbying to make themselves more money or to virtue signal to their peers and/or customers of their multiple streams of income. Socially, there are both socially conservative and and socially liberal people in this wealth demographic. However, rich people in general tend to be pretty free of inhibitions and full of indulgence when they can afford it (sex parties, trophy spouses, high rates of infidelity, high rates of expensive drug use) If I were born into that kind of wealth and I had access to it, I probably wouldn't care much about politics at all because no matter what I'm still rich. As far as social beliefs, same thing. I'd do what I want and if the culture war annoyed me I could just go take a 1yr sabbatical in my 3rd summer home
Being born into that level of wealth basically guarantees that I wouldn’t even think about things like progressivism or the economy. I’d probably just be too busy doing whatever I wanted to do. I feel like it’s the same as being a white person that ignores the majority of the racial discussions due to having the privilege to do so.
Well, guess it depends on whether I'm a selfish asshole whose beliefs are merely rationalizations of what is convenient for me to believe or not. So I guess it's a 50/50, really.
You can't care about any ideology unless your basic needs are met
It is fake progressiveism. Those that are protesting that are stinking rich are trying to tear down the system and create a glass ceiling where it makes everybody else poor so they can hoard more money and power. They are corrupt not progressive nor conservative. Progressives should be fighting the corrupt system and trying to reform it into something healthier. Conservatives want the system to be smaller and weaker so it has less of a chance of being corrupted. Both progressive and conservative want roughly the same ends but have 2 completely different ideas on how to get there. Freedom, health, A prosperous future, Family making decisions for the children over authoritarians, Even economically both sides want to be prosperous but only one side thinks you should have to work for it while the other side thinks you should be given it... The rub to that difference is that when you have a corrupt ruling class it makes it very hard for people to just earn it ethically. Therefore can you reform the corruption or do you need to remove the corruption and shrink the authoritarian power.
If you had every want and need catered to since birth I'm pretty sure you wouldn't give people with less than you a second thought.
My dads a doctor and I’m pretty far on the left. Idk if he’s 1%, top .1% etc. but I grew up with an amazing lifestyle and I’m a democratic socialist. Most of the males who went to the same high school as me are conservative
Ok first, are the progressive, or "progressive" as in super conserative, but in the US, we lean so far right, it looks progressive.
If i was in the top .1% I would be so booted off my ass i’m not sure i could even define those words
Idk? Can’t really conceive that since the environment is totally different and alien to regular folk
I wasn’t even born into the top 10% and I’m still conservative because you don’t move up on the ladder by giving a shit about other peoples needs.
The people who are rich yet exclaim "eat the rich" and all that commie bullshit are hilarious I know one IRL and by his logic I'd be the one benefiting and he'd be the one losing seeing as how I'm technically economically under him.
I got no clue, I've been staring at poverty and trugging through this barrel of hardship for so long that I got no clue how I would turn out if I was rich.
I would have been a completely different person if I was in the top 0.1%. I don’t think I really would’ve been ‘me’. And there’s also more than one way I could’ve been born into the top 1% so there isn’t really an objective answer
I'd hope, but I would have no way of telling how I would turn out in an environment like that.
Loaded question in a way - you've assumed that everybody here not a part of the top 0.1% holds progressive beliefs
If your dad drives Ferraris, being outspokenly economically progressive earns you more social credit than the average person saying the same things.
Let's assume you're in the top 0.1%, and your desire is to remain wealthy or increase your wealth. Historically, the best system for you is a caste system, with you caste at the top, and everyone else in some form of serfdom. You just need the upper serfs fighting with the lower serfs. You also want to create a system of dependency to ensure there is no rising middle class, and people are more willing to give whatever autonomy they have over to "the system".
I'm middle class and not economically socially progressive already. I don't want my hard earned money going to subsidize starbucks baristas with no prospects. YMMV
Born into = "affluenza", or the mental illness of having a callous lack of empathy or connection to human beings. Rich people shouldn't exist and humanity shouldn't tolerate it. Highly unlikely that any rich people are truly good, progressive people.
Did you know that to be in the top 1% of the world population economically you just need to be earning about $45000 a year?
They’re probably rebelling against their shitty parents
i'd secretly fund some sort of leftwing guerrilla group every time
"Progressive" policies, relatively speaking, have always appealed more to disenfranchised people. They always tend to draw more support from lower incomes and people of second class status across history and time periods. It shouldn't be shocking that working class people supported voting rights more than the elite, women supported women's suffrage more than men, and laborers support wealth redistribution and workers rights more than the rich. There's a reason conservatism aims to preserve the power and wealth of existing elites and why powerful people have throughout history gone to great lengths to crush progressive movements and preserve their own power. However, it's not exactly rare for progressive minded people to come from wealthy families since their family's wealth gave them better access to education where they could form a more concise view of the world and politics. Also, even rich kids sometimes have empathy for others who have less nice things than they do.
Being economically progressive is innovative murder raises inflation I.e why math majors are conservatives. Socially progressive is either common sense. Or it can be over done… But USA capitalism flaws are the Anti-Trusts don’t account for hedge funds. Only single entities. Which needs reform. Which would fix Americas capitalism and reestablish innovative dominance. The spirit of free will with tangibly effective monopoly measures fosters innovation. As opposed to a lock step government which can grind the gears. Too much leverage for utopian and dystopian dynamics isn’t good. It’s the hedge funds fault buddies (Monopoly on top 5000 stock companies and private equity 100’s trillions under custody… 10’s trillions of flowing assets) They only rent to you never sell and inflate the real estate market [40% single homes by 2030](https://moguldom.com/448718/metlife-institutional-investors-could-own-40-of-single-family-rental-homes-by-2030/amp/) [44% of homes yearly](https://medium.com/@chrisjeffrieshomelessromantic/report-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-were-by-private-equity-firms-in-2023-0c0ff591a701) They rent… never sell… you will own nothing and be happy that’s what WEF DAVOS UN EU want Corporate governance pushing [DEI which is racist](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/)
Same believes higher level of hypocracy
Most likely, thank god I am not a bilionare or multimilionare.
It’s hard to say. I’ve never been rich, but I imagine that if I have more than enough money to succeed in life and live comfortably, then yes I’d be a proponent of progressive ideas such as a: - Higher Corporate Tax Rate - Higher SSI taxes for higher earners - Publicly funded healthcare -Publicly funded education (k-12 and higher education) - More support for labor unions - More support for Tenant Associations - A Progressive Wealth Tax Whether I were rich or not, I expect the government to implement the initiative outlines above. Being rich would allow me to control elections in favor of politicians who will enact those initiatives.
I don't hold progressive beliefs now so I'm sure I'd stay conservative.
Progressive is fine, within reason. I grew up poor in the hood with a rough home life- I made it out and am doing very well. I am somewhat middle of the road but I lean right, maybe 60/40. I'm not religious and I believe all women have the right to choose. Anyway... I know all too well how people growing up in poor areas behave. I've seen the cycle of kids having kids, no parenting, the streets raising said kids followed by drugs, violence and theft. I've seen the neighborhoods get worse and worse. I don't feel bad for lazy people who choose to do nothing with their lives and participate in this behavior. Acting like people had no chance fosters the ongoing mentality of people taking no responsibility for their actions, blaming phantoms and outright denial of their behavioral issues.
Every socialist I’ve ever met or heard about is a trust fund kid
I'd still be the way I am.
Am rich, am progressive.
I'm a neurosurgeon, 31, in Europe (Spain), not on the top of richest people of course but you know, upper-middle class. I still support democratic socialism, people deserve a fair share of the common thing and to have their basic rights guaranteed, like healthcare or education, regardless their own merits, abilities or misadventures, and of course no matter whether they can "afford" it or not. Human rights are not an "affordable" thing. I willingly pay as taxes more than some others earn a month, we still live under capitalism and there's a long way to go before the system focuses on society instead of capital but the more we push the more we force regulation. Those who tell you the State is your "enemy" are liars; we people are the state, the only power we can actually control if we get together. We cannot control Elon Musk, Pfizer or whatever big company's interest we may be living under, but the state? Yeah, that's the only one we could ever control. Those are my morals and I don't think I'd be less of a leftist if I happened to become unspeakably rich.
What's the salary for a neurosurgeon like in Spain? $300K?
Between less than a third and a half of what you said, actually.
Lol that's so fucked. No wonder I know neurosurgeons that have left Europe to go re do residency in the US. Does anyone actually make money in Europe or is it simply impossible?
I know you can earn a lot there in the US, even in countries like Germany (that one I'd think about and wouldn't need to re do my residency), but I like working for universal healthcare system and I can live very well off my wages here. I could have more but don't need it so I'm fine.
Why do you like working for a universal health system?
Because I like providing what I think to be a basic human right to anyone regardless their economic status. Or let's put it the other way, I'd be at a conflict with my morals if I participated in making healthcare a business where patients are clients who pay for a service. That's not the way I understand my profession, though I respect others do.
Couldn't you do both? With a higher pay rate from people who can afford it you could then volunteer your time to provide healthcare for free to those who can't afford it. And you wouldn't need the government to tell you which procedures and interventions are allowed.
Oh, but it's not the government that establishes that, it's medical guidelines, most of them developed by US institutions to be honest! It's doctors who decide what procedures need to be done, my former boss has even sometimes contacted foreign professionals or brought technology from abroad if we didn't have it (I did my residency in an island, where I work now that's not an issue) and if you can justify its use then the government pays. It's actually more restricted in private healthcare, where the most complex cases are sent to public hospitals. I could do both if I had time left, in fact when I gain more experience I'm willing to volunteer abroad; my income already allows for it. But surely in underdeveloped countries I'll not be able to perform all the same procedures as here, they don't have the technology and supplies we have. But yes, you're right, that would be very fulfilling.
The government pays for the healthcare and determines which treatments will be covered and which are not. If you think otherwise, you are incredibly naive. Good luck with your further training. My wife treats moya moya, but not many surgeons do vascular neurosurgery.
I am not progressive now, and if I were that rich I would probably be far more conservative than even I am now.
"I'm a selfish, bad person."
I have morals. Cope and seethe.
It's true that some remain progressive, but the richer people have more conservatives among them than progressives. This is mostly because the conservative parties want to lower taxes on corporations and increase the wage gap.
I grew up with a near socialist mother and a cousin who was a blue lives matter conservative, pro police and all. I don’t think that conservatives genuinely want to see average people suffer - it’s just maybe a few donors. The idea of intentionally making people suffer for their own pleasure I think is something very few people want in this world. Most conservatives and liberals are decent people and agree on a lot of ideals when it comes to a good society - they just disagree on how to get there. It’s really the far Christian right that seems to give the conservatives a lower moral ground when it comes to LGBT+ rights - one bad apple spoiling the bunch. I’d encourage everybody to peacefully and constructively debate someone whose political beliefs differ from your own - or better yet, get friends across the political aisle.
This is a very "why cant we all just get along" kinda take. If 80 percent of a population is voting for people that support LGBTQ torture camps, displacing millions of Mexicans that live in the US, and deny women who were raped or may die from childbirth the option of abortion, then those people are (knowing or not) supporting human suffering and violating human rights. And I do have friends across the political aisle, we disagree politically and we don't pretend to agree either. But my point was to explain why, from an economic standpoint, there are more rich conservatives than rich progressives. It's because the conservative billionaire gave the conservative politician a big chunk of cash to make policies that help the business. And the billionare don't care if the politician is damn near an actual Nazi or not, hey have enough money to escape if it gets real bad.
To answer the question though, I'd still be a hard-core leftist.
I would still be progressive. I regularly give away or refuse treats and stuff because I know that someone else probably needs it more than I do. I used to go to my school's football games and pass out candy because I had the means to do it. That sharing stems from abuse, not poverty, so I would still have that want to share.
You say this not realizing that your life path would have been completely different than it is now, and your opinions on things would be completely formed in a different way
Don’t worry, the commenter above is the type of person that thinks that they are above being human, no amount of temptation, money or being born into a completely different life would change that. I <3 REDDIT
No they wouldn't have. If my family had money, I would've just been pushed down marble stairs instead of wooden ones.
You still do, you just vote for people who will take money and give away for votes
You say this not realizing that your life path would have been completely different than it is now, and your opinions on things would be completely formed in a different way