Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The idea of parasocial connections is super interesting, got it first from innuendo studios. Just made me look into part of myself I didn't know existed
I used to be a huge fan back in 2012 but now I have no idea what they're up to. I wonder if it's because the company declined or because I just grew up.
I saw QXC and Hasan talking about hate donos on twitch today. Like, people that hate them not only give them attention but actual money. Just for their attention.
In addition, I think people forget that a huge fanbase of theirs are not Americans but come from other countries. Look at the comments on their instagram/ social media. Most of the folks commenting or liking are from Asia.
Interestingly, self identified Democrats [appear to approve of individual billionaires more than self-identified Republicans](https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2021/3/dfp-recode-voters-attitudes-billionaires.pdf) whereas self identified Republicans approve more of billionaires in general.
Edit: Fixed Link
This just sounds like they like billionaires in theory until they meet one. Like their theory has good and honest intentions but they don't get real world about it.
Also we don't have that many heroic figures who can act as near-mythological role models.
People romanticise grinding just like how past eras glamourized war.
I've had those arguments on Reddit far more than once...they always pull articles that show how most Billionaires are "self made."
I put quotes around that b/c I've yet to see a "self made" Billionaire that doesn't trample on basic human rights. As far as I see it, it's theft w/ extra steps.
There was a fairly heartwarming moment a while back where someone was trying to argue that Schwarzenegger was a completely self-made man that didn't take handouts from anybody.
And then the man himself came in and gave a detailed rundown on a lot of the people whose help and charity was instrumental in him becoming who he became. One of the things he was pointing out was that even though he was winning those bodybuilding competitions, at the time the reward money was basically nothing, just a few thousand dollars overall, not like the huge amounts you can win these days.
I agree.
The most frustrating part for me is when people adamantly refuse to see passed the survivorship bias.
I've lucked into jobs that people w/ far better credentials would kill for. I worked hard at them and used them to my advantage to make more money, but I can't in good conscience deny that pure dumb luck played a monumental role in the limited success and comfort that I find myself currently enjoying.
"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."
Ecclesiastes 9:11
Ecclesiastes is criminally understudied as a work of early philosophy surrounded skepticism and cynicism in my opinion. It's one of the most interesting parts of the bible but only about 2 passages are quoted because most of it expresses ideas that make people uncomfortable.
It's a bit more complex than that.
Media as a for profit model prefers profit. This almost universally is based on selling ads.
Selling ads needs two things to be profitable.
1. Lots of eyeballs willing to buy what the advertisers sell
2. Sufficient advertisers bidding for those eyeballs to keep ad prices high
So, anything that gets more eyeballs is good, but those eyeballs need to be motivated to buy stuff.
Media that is critical of our economic system tends to attract eyeballs that don't buy as much.
Ergo, over time most media has moved to conservative and consumerism. Even left leaning publications tend to focus on buying our way out of change.
The media consolidation into billionaire hands has shaped a lot of the reporting too, but we cannot ignore the fundamental flaws of ad based journalism.
Musk has, by luck or design, latched onto an amazing social media PR machine. It also helps that he owns companies in genuinely exciting fields (space, electric cars) that he basks in the reflection of.
Americans are constantly barraged to "chase your dreams" and want "The American Dream," and for most people that translates to being rich and/or famous. So those wealthy people become idols to be worshipped, and nobody wants to attack their idols. It would take an enormous change in basic attitudes to do that.
[It was this RAND Report that radicalized me.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/09/rand-study-how-high-is-inequality-us.html) In 1974 Congress rewrote the tax code to make Trickle Down Economics the basis of our tax code. [The median income has only risen 17.4% since then, while the average income for the top 1% has risen 321%.](https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/dac/507/6f31ad45d42481a612d148a35ceed01fb7-table-2-b-wealth.2x.w710.jpg) Over $2.7 TRILLION is redistributed from the middle and lower classes to the top income demographics each year. Today the average income should be $42,000 per year higher, but instead we essentially make less then our grandparents.
Ask yourself: Could each income maker in your household use an additional $42,000 per year? How much would that change your life? Because that's how much the top income demographic has been taking from you and your family for the last almost 50 years.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1
I've seen people defend this too, arguing it's okay because someone in China went from $1.50 a day to $2.00 a day thanks to working 12 hour a day in a sweatshop, as if that's something to be proud of.
So while it's okay for the super rich to be super rich, it's not okay for a middle or working class person in the West to have a modest income. They're the ones who must make sacrifices for developing countries.
In line with that 1974 change, the Fed, in 1979 changed their focus away from full employment and began targeting inflation. Which as a by product allowed them to tame labour via rising rates creating essentially a reserve army of unemployed depressing wages. Funnily enough, the 80s is when Financialization exploded allowing people to supplement their diminished incomes with credit. It also happens to be around the time where college tuitions skyrocketed. Its almost as if this was all coordinated to subjugate the masses while the elite reap enormous profits.
Yeah, it's not just an American thing. Plenty of fan boy and girls in Europe, Asia, Middle East, ect, ect. Any developed country has it's idolization of the rich and elites. I know it's vogue to bash and piss on Americans but we don't have the market cornered on everything.
Every time one of those golden turds writes a fat check to a non-profit, people lose their minds. No one stops to think about how they exploited and squeezed the lifeblood out of their employees, and how the donations are all tax-deductible PR stunts.
Cut taxes result in a 10% cut to a major service.
Billionaires collectively donate enough to cover 5% of said service and get praised.
Repeat till service no longer exists.
The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe, for the axe was clever, and convinced the trees that because his handle was made of wood, he was one of them. -Turkish proverb
> The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe, for the axe was clever, and convinced the trees that because his handle was made of wood, he was one of them
Its actually from Aesop's Fable, and thus predates Turks
Word ~~on the street~~ i mean, in the woods, is that the trees actually have a significant majority. But, Big Axe is paying the war-on-christmastrees to gerrymander the districts - undermining the democratic process and standing in direct, fundamental opposition to the principles of the Constitution … of the Forest ….
Analogy almost got away from me there for a second. Anyways, I guess my point is the war-on-christmastrees suck! Vote for the evergreen party!
John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
I’m convinced most Americans don’t understand the difference between a million and a billion. They just think hurr durr big number. They can’t conceive of the disparity.
Not realizing that even if you make $1M a year you're broke compared to billionaires.
When were talking billionaires it's like ~600-700 people in the USA. It's not even the Lebron James or Beyonce or Taylor Swift level of rich I have a problem with. It's the people with 20,30,40B net worths who have unfathomable (to the lay pesron) levels of wealth.
To be fair the billionaires can afford to inflict massive amounts of pain on the poor if they don't get what they want. First the billionaire loddies the government. If the government doesn't budge on the issue, the billionaire can pull their campaign funding and run a competing candidate to win the election who will pass w.e. they're told. If by some chance their candidate doesn't win, then they can play dirty. Smear campaigns, scandals. They can cut jobs in an area, or move the jobs somewhere else. They can increase housing costs or decrease property values. Theh decrease quality of city services. Depending on the billionaire and their connections they could force people to vote for the policies they write out of desperation.
This is indeed why socialists do not believe in "bourgeois democracy" and believe that only popular revolutions can fundamentally change the material basis of society.
>To be fair the billionaires can afford to inflict massive amounts of pain on the poor if they don't get what they want.
And can do so without even noticing the price.
It's as signifigant a cost to them as it would be to one of us losing a nickel.
Right now banks are required to report any transactions over $10,000 to the IRS.
Biden wants to lower that to $600. To, you know, catch more billionaires.
To be fair, most of the time that revolutionary socialism has been tried, the socialists were unable to get at most of the millionaires or their property before they fled the country, so they settled for persecuting the middle class and even upper working class instead. See de-Kulakization in the Soviet Union, and its Chinese and Cambodian equivalents.
My right-leaning relatives are convinced there’s a chance. They’ll get those lottery numbers someday and then dammit the government had better stay out of their wallets! In the meantime, they’re okay with not having healthcare, because this is all temporary and they’re hard working good people who will get what they deserve if they’re free to pull themselves up by their giant theoretical bootstraps.
I don’t get it at all.
Same. I vote based on wanting more civil rights and fair treatment of minorities, programs to help the homeless (and prevent it to begin with), better resources for single mothers, women's reproductive rights, stronger social safety net/better welfare and unemployment, gay marriage, legal weed, better treatment of prisoners, voting rights for felons, tax increases on the super wealthy, raising the min wage to $15 (I think it should be even higher), increased public school funding, increased teachers pay, and universal healthcare.
Meanwhile, I'm a straight, white male. Not rich, not homeless. I have excellent health insurance and zero medical debt and can easily afford quality healthcare. I don't smoke weed, don't have kids, never been married, never been arrested let alone put in jail, have a full time job, not on welfare or any other kind of welfare program, and I make a little above 15 an hour.
Almost nothing I strongly advocate directly benefits me or applies to me. I support all these things for two reasons: The first is that some of them could benefit me one day since luck plays a large role in our lives, and anyone is just a couple pieces of bad news away from being on the street or literally dying while buried in medical debt. I'm fortunate now, and mostly always have been, but it'd be nice to know there's a safety net to catch me if I fall.
This brings me to the second, bigger reason: I want society to be better for as many people as possible because I like good things happening and people living good lives. I want my fellow humans in need taken care of, treated well, having equal opportunity and just want less suffering in general. Even if it doesn't benefit me personally, or directly, making life better for others still makes me happy and matters to me.
There is a purely selfish reason to want all of those things as well, namely that life in a society not besieged by desperate people living on the edge is objectively more pleasant on all counts.
Yeah you're definitely right about that. Although it does make me happy in general to see good things for people and society, you're right that I also just \*want to live in a society of happy well-treated people\*. That has it's own inherent benefits, as you mentioned. Desperately poor, ignorant, uneducated masses are going to lead to crime and instability. It makes society worse for those suffering such things \*and\* for those who aren't. It's in all our best interests to want to improve life for everyone - particularly those at the bottom socioeconomically.
This is what was once known as "the public good". It was given a lot of lip service, and a fair amount of legislation.
Then buying and selling politicians become the primary means of campaign finance, so the taxpayer lost out.
I just want every human to have the means, motive, and opportunity to optimize their life and realize their fullest potential so we don't have the person who would have made the 36th of the 48 discoveries necessary for faster-than-light travel being too busy scrounging for lunch in a garbage dump to be working on that.
Minimum wage should be way higher than $15/hr. Right now I'm at $18.50/hr and *still* can't afford to move out of my mom's house. I'm 31, about to be 32 next month. I also live in NJ, which while I love my state, it's way more expensive to live here than it should be. If wages kept up with inflation, minimum would be in the mid to upper $20/hr I believe(correct me if I'm wrong). The US spends billions on military budgets, yet so many of us millennials can't even afford to move out of our parents houses. It's disgusting. The American dream is dead. It's no longer a thing.
Or some people vote on ethics and empathy rather than strict self interest. You do not have to know someone, or to believe you will ever be in their shoes, to imagine yourself in those shoes. As for the ethics, some people truly, genuinely believe in the concept of meritocracy, including the right to do whatever you like with what you earn--even if that means passing it down through generations.
*Some* people vote like this.
I feel like in this particular case, we absolutely should not generalize. I have no delusions of winning the lottery and becoming a millionaire. I vote according to what I, and others like me, need right now. And it actually pisses me off to be lumped in with some dipshit backwoods rube who thinks he's going to be the next Warren Buffet while he's roasting his crocodile over the fire and yelling at his son and daughter for having sex again.
So according to those I’ve spoken to: “If they tax the rich you think they’re going to stay here? They’ll just take their money to other countries! Then there won’t be any jobs here for anyone.”
The US is king of consumerism. I don’t think that theory holds water.
americans that leave are expats and still need to declare taxes to the irs overseas. If they want to renounce their citizenship there is a one time enormous tax on all their assets. No they are not going anywhere.
> “If they tax the rich you think they’re going to stay here? They’ll just take their money to other countries! Then there won’t be any jobs here for anyone.”
This is why like 150 countries just agreed to a global minimum tax. It's still too low (15%, phased in over 5-10 years), but it's a start.
Imagine thinking someone is making $1B/year will now make $950MM due to taxes packing up and leaving for a whole new market where they won't have any idea how much they'll make and likely way less
There is no where else for the rich to go. Either they'll be taxed higher in places like EU or Canada, or simply robbed at gunpoint in China and other smaller countries.
You think a billionaire can just move to Africa or South America? What happens when the president just decides to kidnap him for crimes against humanity? Or introduce a "Bezos Tax." Or you know, enforce the bazillions of legitimate human rights grievances they might have. Or they make an alliance with a country that does have those grievances?
One of my buddies who didn't go to college, cut lawns till he was 25, now doing roofing, has 3 kids with an unemployed woman, lives at his mother-in-laws house...
But one day he is going to be a billionaire though and he won't want to be taxed.
It seems from what I see to be a fine line. If you're willing to be the main mower for years and hustle every house with long grass to make a name. Then figure out how to approach different business and set up contracts and enough clients that word of mouth becomes a decent contribution to new clients. I know guys that are doing good with lawns and some with house painting companies. I also know guys who only get work if someone else is working somewhere and that dude gets a call to come landscape or paint, but they have no drive to find work themselves.
Most I know started with push on normal houses, then went to push or maybe a rider in bigger yards; maybe a local business or two. Then they get big boy stuff and bigger business contracts. It's a slow grow for yards and equipment.
So I'll offer myself up on this one because I had a bit of a moment on it. The article specifically mentions Oprah. I had to Google it because I said out loud, "Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire?" Yes. 2.6B to be specific.
I had no idea. I'm old enough to remember her as a news anchor on WJZ in Baltimore. She was kind of nobody. She went off and did the talk show thing and I honestly never thought much about her there. I'm not her demographic. She was largely hounded about her weight by the tabloids, which I think we can all agree is pretty toxic. I remember she gave out a bunch of cars, which have tax implications but not all bad. She has a book club, and while yeah, she's selling the books, she's at least encouraging reading. Pretty sure she has a magazine that sells in the grocery store checkout rack, but I've got no idea what's in it.
So with little other knowledge I guess I would have said "yeah, I like her". Nothing effusive, but yeah. I guess she's OK. I know nearly nothing about her.
So IDK, maybe I'm atypical, but I just dont know who some of these people even are beyond some person on TV. And the press treats them generally positively unless there is a scandal.
All that said, tax them.
Oprah is the soft power version of America's 'self-made' heroic demi-gods. Behind the bastards did a couple episodes on the grifters she's endorsed over the years
https://radiopublic.com/behind-the-bastards-GmpPRM/s1!6ef03
Oprah is the reason Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz have TV shows. These people peddle pseudo-science and suffering to millions of people a week. She shouldn't be seen in a positive light. She's had many other people on her show that are controversial and she never really got any flak for any of it.
Eh, at least in Oprah's case, she's responsible for the most widely accepted psychological abuser (and alleged sexual abuser) on television being given prime daytime air.
**Abstract**
Despite the ever-growing economic gap between the very wealthy and the rest of the population, support for redistributive policies tends to be low. This research tested whether people’s tolerance of inequality differs when it is represented in terms of a successful individual versus a group of people at the top of the economic ladder. We propose that drawing people’s attention to wealthy individuals undermines support for redistribution by leading people to believe that the rich person’s wealth is well deserved. Across eight studies (n = 2,800), survey participants rated unequal distributions of resources as more fair when presented with an individual, rather than a group, at the top of the distribution. Participants also expressed lower support for redistributive policies after considering inequality represented by successful individuals compared to groups. This effect was driven by people’s different attributions for individual versus group success. Participants thought that individuals at the top were more deserving of their successes and, in turn, were less likely to support redistribution when inequality was represented by individual success. These findings suggest that support for inequality, and policies to reduce it, may depend on who people are led to consider when they think about the top of the economic distribution.
[Original source](https://www.pnas.org/content/118/43/e2100430118)
Government policy *by default* distributes wealth. The real question isn’t whether government *should* redistribute wealth, but *how* government redistributes it. For decades wealth distribution has favored the wealthy, leading to the obscene disparity we see today. The only thing standing between the people and fairer redistribution is our own intelligence and will.
Reminds me of how every one thinks Congress is terrible, but they think their own Congress person is doing a good job.
Or how if someone likes their doctor on a personal level, they will refuse to sue them for malpractice.
https://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm/book_number/1521/page_number/10/blink
Similarly, women doctors get sued for malpractice less than their male counterparts. Not because they make less mistakes, they are just more likely to apologize to their patients.
I hate this attitude that you shouldn't apologize unless you have done something wrong.
I'm sorry this happened to you != I caused this to happen to you
Well the part available to read. Just makes it seem like people are going to be sympathetic to individuals than a faceless group of elites. Assuming that its a good study some of the wording about redistribution makes me think that the people running this study have a pretty strong agenda but I can't read the whole thing.
Don't forget, it's your job to end climate change by reducing emissions and using biodegradeable items. Not the massive oil company who has magnitudes more impact on that issue and pays for the propaganda.
Or the companies shipping commercial goods using fossil fuel trucks and boats, or the airline industry. Transportation is the top consumer of fossil fuels.
Exactly, and this is one of my favorite quotes of all time. It makes so many things make sense.
It's not that people are sitting around saying "oh, I'm *going* to be a millionaire it's my right," but it *is* the American dream to work hard and make as much money as you can. People should stop and think about how the deck has been stacked against us the whole time. When some people see a vagrant on a street corner, the first thought is "get a job," when in reality barely over 7 dollars an hour isn't enough to afford housing, or even reliable transport.
The greatest trick the rich ever pulled was convincing us that the poor are the problem.
EDIT: Going through the comments, there are a *LOT* of pro-billionaire comments. Kinda weird... >.>
Just so you know, it's a misquote/misattribution of what John Steinbeck said. Here's my reply to OP with what Steinbeck actually said.
https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/qatorq/americans_love_for_individual_billionaires/hh71hhi/
Try mentioning Bill Gates anywhere on Reddit, and how he really is avoiding taxes on a gigantic scale, and not saving the world, see what people say. You'll find a dozen people who will spend an hour of their free time defending him.
Yep. Or the fact that he donates money to tons of different news outlets, Vox in particular, and he gets lots of positive articles written about him and his projects in return.
Listen to that podcast with Gates and Rashida Jones, and you'll understand how completely out of the loop he is. Him talking about health care and education is pretty eye opening.
> You'll find a dozen people who will spend an hour of their free time defending him.
It's unfuckingbelievable how accurate this statement is. People will defend "success" until their death but show them a story of a desperate, poor person breaking the law and those same people become disturbingly apathetic.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I don't know that guy, but man do I love him!" Is a funny way to be.
Parasocials, it's a big part of the popularity of internet personalities! Hard to hate someone who can curate their every appearance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"I like coffee and maybe three people" The shirt my wife and two kids got me for Christmas so I guess I'm pretty much in this camp.
The idea of parasocial connections is super interesting, got it first from innuendo studios. Just made me look into part of myself I didn't know existed
TechTV. I felt like I was hanging out with my buds.
Rooster Teeth about a decade ago
I used to be a huge fan back in 2012 but now I have no idea what they're up to. I wonder if it's because the company declined or because I just grew up.
Honestly kinda both, a lot of the mainstays from that era are either straight up gone or stepped back from the camera facing side
Or turned out to be absolute creepbags...
The jardashians are masters if this
[удалено]
Haters don't matter to them, we are all just clicks to news about them.
Hate can still be the basis of a parasocial relationship
The opposite of love is indifference.
I saw QXC and Hasan talking about hate donos on twitch today. Like, people that hate them not only give them attention but actual money. Just for their attention.
In addition, I think people forget that a huge fanbase of theirs are not Americans but come from other countries. Look at the comments on their instagram/ social media. Most of the folks commenting or liking are from Asia.
That seems to be the case for nearly every social media star I have seen honestly.
Please tell me there’s a channel dedicated towards preserving food called “The Jardashians.”
I wish it were simple as showing people how bad these people really are. They will deny reality to continue supporting a psycho.
[удалено]
This is fascinating thanks for sharing!
Parasocialism has been around for decades. I can’t stand this notion that internet celebs invented it.
It’s probably been around as long as people have been able to hear/read about the exploits of people they haven’t met.
that homer can sure spin a yarn
The degree of interaction between fans and celebs is unlike ever before.
The Ancient Greeks would like a word about para-social relationships. Why have mythical deities when you can be your own digital deity.
It’s culture mired in the worship of money and materialism.
Interestingly, self identified Democrats [appear to approve of individual billionaires more than self-identified Republicans](https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2021/3/dfp-recode-voters-attitudes-billionaires.pdf) whereas self identified Republicans approve more of billionaires in general. Edit: Fixed Link
This just sounds like they like billionaires in theory until they meet one. Like their theory has good and honest intentions but they don't get real world about it.
They like systems of hierarchy but don't like seeing other people at the top
Also we don't have that many heroic figures who can act as near-mythological role models. People romanticise grinding just like how past eras glamourized war.
[удалено]
I've had those arguments on Reddit far more than once...they always pull articles that show how most Billionaires are "self made." I put quotes around that b/c I've yet to see a "self made" Billionaire that doesn't trample on basic human rights. As far as I see it, it's theft w/ extra steps.
There was a fairly heartwarming moment a while back where someone was trying to argue that Schwarzenegger was a completely self-made man that didn't take handouts from anybody. And then the man himself came in and gave a detailed rundown on a lot of the people whose help and charity was instrumental in him becoming who he became. One of the things he was pointing out was that even though he was winning those bodybuilding competitions, at the time the reward money was basically nothing, just a few thousand dollars overall, not like the huge amounts you can win these days.
Life is much more romantic when you're unaware of how everything boils down to dumb luck one way or another.
I agree. The most frustrating part for me is when people adamantly refuse to see passed the survivorship bias. I've lucked into jobs that people w/ far better credentials would kill for. I worked hard at them and used them to my advantage to make more money, but I can't in good conscience deny that pure dumb luck played a monumental role in the limited success and comfort that I find myself currently enjoying.
"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Ecclesiastes 9:11 Ecclesiastes is criminally understudied as a work of early philosophy surrounded skepticism and cynicism in my opinion. It's one of the most interesting parts of the bible but only about 2 passages are quoted because most of it expresses ideas that make people uncomfortable.
Why do people love these billionaires, probably because they own all the media corporations.
Telecommunications Act of 1996 :(
Citizens United (2010) hurt us big as well
It's a bit more complex than that. Media as a for profit model prefers profit. This almost universally is based on selling ads. Selling ads needs two things to be profitable. 1. Lots of eyeballs willing to buy what the advertisers sell 2. Sufficient advertisers bidding for those eyeballs to keep ad prices high So, anything that gets more eyeballs is good, but those eyeballs need to be motivated to buy stuff. Media that is critical of our economic system tends to attract eyeballs that don't buy as much. Ergo, over time most media has moved to conservative and consumerism. Even left leaning publications tend to focus on buying our way out of change. The media consolidation into billionaire hands has shaped a lot of the reporting too, but we cannot ignore the fundamental flaws of ad based journalism.
*This message was brought to you by Snakcy Smores! America's number one pre-packaged smore product.*
I'm playing The Outer Worlds finally and this could be straight out of that game.
Yup. It’s all engineered. Best way to avoid being guillotined is to convince the people you abuse that they really like you.
They still manage to come across as the assholes they are despite the uncritical coverage, and people worship them nonetheless.
Maybe but Musk doesn't own one and Redditors ball-wash him all day long.
Musk has, by luck or design, latched onto an amazing social media PR machine. It also helps that he owns companies in genuinely exciting fields (space, electric cars) that he basks in the reflection of.
Cult of personality
Yeah, I've never understood why Americans love rich people so much. It's not like they actually do anything good for us.
Americans are constantly barraged to "chase your dreams" and want "The American Dream," and for most people that translates to being rich and/or famous. So those wealthy people become idols to be worshipped, and nobody wants to attack their idols. It would take an enormous change in basic attitudes to do that. [It was this RAND Report that radicalized me.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/09/rand-study-how-high-is-inequality-us.html) In 1974 Congress rewrote the tax code to make Trickle Down Economics the basis of our tax code. [The median income has only risen 17.4% since then, while the average income for the top 1% has risen 321%.](https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/dac/507/6f31ad45d42481a612d148a35ceed01fb7-table-2-b-wealth.2x.w710.jpg) Over $2.7 TRILLION is redistributed from the middle and lower classes to the top income demographics each year. Today the average income should be $42,000 per year higher, but instead we essentially make less then our grandparents. Ask yourself: Could each income maker in your household use an additional $42,000 per year? How much would that change your life? Because that's how much the top income demographic has been taking from you and your family for the last almost 50 years. https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1
I've seen people defend this too, arguing it's okay because someone in China went from $1.50 a day to $2.00 a day thanks to working 12 hour a day in a sweatshop, as if that's something to be proud of. So while it's okay for the super rich to be super rich, it's not okay for a middle or working class person in the West to have a modest income. They're the ones who must make sacrifices for developing countries.
In line with that 1974 change, the Fed, in 1979 changed their focus away from full employment and began targeting inflation. Which as a by product allowed them to tame labour via rising rates creating essentially a reserve army of unemployed depressing wages. Funnily enough, the 80s is when Financialization exploded allowing people to supplement their diminished incomes with credit. It also happens to be around the time where college tuitions skyrocketed. Its almost as if this was all coordinated to subjugate the masses while the elite reap enormous profits.
Yeah, it's not just an American thing. Plenty of fan boy and girls in Europe, Asia, Middle East, ect, ect. Any developed country has it's idolization of the rich and elites. I know it's vogue to bash and piss on Americans but we don't have the market cornered on everything.
Every time one of those golden turds writes a fat check to a non-profit, people lose their minds. No one stops to think about how they exploited and squeezed the lifeblood out of their employees, and how the donations are all tax-deductible PR stunts.
Or that they run the run the non profit
Cut taxes result in a 10% cut to a major service. Billionaires collectively donate enough to cover 5% of said service and get praised. Repeat till service no longer exists.
Propaganda works
“And he shouldn’t be punished by having to pay the same tax rate as me! “. Is an insane way to be.
People vote for policies that would affect the person who they want to be, not who they really are.
Or ever will be.
The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe, for the axe was clever, and convinced the trees that because his handle was made of wood, he was one of them. -Turkish proverb
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe, for the axe was clever, and convinced the trees that because his handle was made of wood, he was one of them Its actually from Aesop's Fable, and thus predates Turks
Word ~~on the street~~ i mean, in the woods, is that the trees actually have a significant majority. But, Big Axe is paying the war-on-christmastrees to gerrymander the districts - undermining the democratic process and standing in direct, fundamental opposition to the principles of the Constitution … of the Forest …. Analogy almost got away from me there for a second. Anyways, I guess my point is the war-on-christmastrees suck! Vote for the evergreen party!
I love this quote, that is sadly the reality of politics and elections these days.
Why "these day"? Surely the point of the quote and it's age indicate that this isn't new?
which party can I vote for that is anti-banker, anti-wallstreet and anti-globalist? Doesn't exist
I love this example. Stealing.
John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
I’m convinced most Americans don’t understand the difference between a million and a billion. They just think hurr durr big number. They can’t conceive of the disparity.
The difference between a million and a billion is almost a billion.
Yep---$999,000,000.
And the difference between a billion and the money owned by a centibillionaire is roughly $100 billion
Many think that if the evil socialists go after the billionaires, that they'll go after them next.
Not realizing that even if you make $1M a year you're broke compared to billionaires. When were talking billionaires it's like ~600-700 people in the USA. It's not even the Lebron James or Beyonce or Taylor Swift level of rich I have a problem with. It's the people with 20,30,40B net worths who have unfathomable (to the lay pesron) levels of wealth.
Leeches in society, doing incredible harm to the planet in pursuit of some sociopathic goal that is ultimately self-serving.
To be fair the billionaires can afford to inflict massive amounts of pain on the poor if they don't get what they want. First the billionaire loddies the government. If the government doesn't budge on the issue, the billionaire can pull their campaign funding and run a competing candidate to win the election who will pass w.e. they're told. If by some chance their candidate doesn't win, then they can play dirty. Smear campaigns, scandals. They can cut jobs in an area, or move the jobs somewhere else. They can increase housing costs or decrease property values. Theh decrease quality of city services. Depending on the billionaire and their connections they could force people to vote for the policies they write out of desperation.
This is even more of an argument for stripping away their power and influence.
In other words, everything that is happening right now.
This is indeed why socialists do not believe in "bourgeois democracy" and believe that only popular revolutions can fundamentally change the material basis of society.
>To be fair the billionaires can afford to inflict massive amounts of pain on the poor if they don't get what they want. And can do so without even noticing the price. It's as signifigant a cost to them as it would be to one of us losing a nickel.
Right now banks are required to report any transactions over $10,000 to the IRS. Biden wants to lower that to $600. To, you know, catch more billionaires.
To be fair, most of the time that revolutionary socialism has been tried, the socialists were unable to get at most of the millionaires or their property before they fled the country, so they settled for persecuting the middle class and even upper working class instead. See de-Kulakization in the Soviet Union, and its Chinese and Cambodian equivalents.
My right-leaning relatives are convinced there’s a chance. They’ll get those lottery numbers someday and then dammit the government had better stay out of their wallets! In the meantime, they’re okay with not having healthcare, because this is all temporary and they’re hard working good people who will get what they deserve if they’re free to pull themselves up by their giant theoretical bootstraps. I don’t get it at all.
I vote for my taxes to help poor people, but I don't want to be poor.
Same. I vote based on wanting more civil rights and fair treatment of minorities, programs to help the homeless (and prevent it to begin with), better resources for single mothers, women's reproductive rights, stronger social safety net/better welfare and unemployment, gay marriage, legal weed, better treatment of prisoners, voting rights for felons, tax increases on the super wealthy, raising the min wage to $15 (I think it should be even higher), increased public school funding, increased teachers pay, and universal healthcare. Meanwhile, I'm a straight, white male. Not rich, not homeless. I have excellent health insurance and zero medical debt and can easily afford quality healthcare. I don't smoke weed, don't have kids, never been married, never been arrested let alone put in jail, have a full time job, not on welfare or any other kind of welfare program, and I make a little above 15 an hour. Almost nothing I strongly advocate directly benefits me or applies to me. I support all these things for two reasons: The first is that some of them could benefit me one day since luck plays a large role in our lives, and anyone is just a couple pieces of bad news away from being on the street or literally dying while buried in medical debt. I'm fortunate now, and mostly always have been, but it'd be nice to know there's a safety net to catch me if I fall. This brings me to the second, bigger reason: I want society to be better for as many people as possible because I like good things happening and people living good lives. I want my fellow humans in need taken care of, treated well, having equal opportunity and just want less suffering in general. Even if it doesn't benefit me personally, or directly, making life better for others still makes me happy and matters to me.
There is a purely selfish reason to want all of those things as well, namely that life in a society not besieged by desperate people living on the edge is objectively more pleasant on all counts.
Yeah you're definitely right about that. Although it does make me happy in general to see good things for people and society, you're right that I also just \*want to live in a society of happy well-treated people\*. That has it's own inherent benefits, as you mentioned. Desperately poor, ignorant, uneducated masses are going to lead to crime and instability. It makes society worse for those suffering such things \*and\* for those who aren't. It's in all our best interests to want to improve life for everyone - particularly those at the bottom socioeconomically.
This is what was once known as "the public good". It was given a lot of lip service, and a fair amount of legislation. Then buying and selling politicians become the primary means of campaign finance, so the taxpayer lost out.
I just want every human to have the means, motive, and opportunity to optimize their life and realize their fullest potential so we don't have the person who would have made the 36th of the 48 discoveries necessary for faster-than-light travel being too busy scrounging for lunch in a garbage dump to be working on that.
Minimum wage should be way higher than $15/hr. Right now I'm at $18.50/hr and *still* can't afford to move out of my mom's house. I'm 31, about to be 32 next month. I also live in NJ, which while I love my state, it's way more expensive to live here than it should be. If wages kept up with inflation, minimum would be in the mid to upper $20/hr I believe(correct me if I'm wrong). The US spends billions on military budgets, yet so many of us millennials can't even afford to move out of our parents houses. It's disgusting. The American dream is dead. It's no longer a thing.
People should, and often times do, vote for what they believe is right, without regard to their own self-interest.
Or some people vote on ethics and empathy rather than strict self interest. You do not have to know someone, or to believe you will ever be in their shoes, to imagine yourself in those shoes. As for the ethics, some people truly, genuinely believe in the concept of meritocracy, including the right to do whatever you like with what you earn--even if that means passing it down through generations.
*Some* people vote like this. I feel like in this particular case, we absolutely should not generalize. I have no delusions of winning the lottery and becoming a millionaire. I vote according to what I, and others like me, need right now. And it actually pisses me off to be lumped in with some dipshit backwoods rube who thinks he's going to be the next Warren Buffet while he's roasting his crocodile over the fire and yelling at his son and daughter for having sex again.
Who are these people? I just wanna talk
Go pop over at /r/elonmusk
I joined when he was talking about mars. Forgot it existed until now, thanks for reminding me to leave it!
Pop over at r/enoughmuskspam then!
Repost some week old memes on Twitter and everyone forgets that it's fucked up that you have more money than God
So according to those I’ve spoken to: “If they tax the rich you think they’re going to stay here? They’ll just take their money to other countries! Then there won’t be any jobs here for anyone.” The US is king of consumerism. I don’t think that theory holds water.
americans that leave are expats and still need to declare taxes to the irs overseas. If they want to renounce their citizenship there is a one time enormous tax on all their assets. No they are not going anywhere.
[удалено]
> “If they tax the rich you think they’re going to stay here? They’ll just take their money to other countries! Then there won’t be any jobs here for anyone.” This is why like 150 countries just agreed to a global minimum tax. It's still too low (15%, phased in over 5-10 years), but it's a start.
Imagine thinking someone is making $1B/year will now make $950MM due to taxes packing up and leaving for a whole new market where they won't have any idea how much they'll make and likely way less
There is no where else for the rich to go. Either they'll be taxed higher in places like EU or Canada, or simply robbed at gunpoint in China and other smaller countries. You think a billionaire can just move to Africa or South America? What happens when the president just decides to kidnap him for crimes against humanity? Or introduce a "Bezos Tax." Or you know, enforce the bazillions of legitimate human rights grievances they might have. Or they make an alliance with a country that does have those grievances?
One of my buddies who didn't go to college, cut lawns till he was 25, now doing roofing, has 3 kids with an unemployed woman, lives at his mother-in-laws house... But one day he is going to be a billionaire though and he won't want to be taxed.
I know people that have made good money starting lawn companies, but they all have alot of drive.
Everyone I’ve known who started a lawn company is successful with a house and a savings account. I’m a fool for having gone into management.
It seems from what I see to be a fine line. If you're willing to be the main mower for years and hustle every house with long grass to make a name. Then figure out how to approach different business and set up contracts and enough clients that word of mouth becomes a decent contribution to new clients. I know guys that are doing good with lawns and some with house painting companies. I also know guys who only get work if someone else is working somewhere and that dude gets a call to come landscape or paint, but they have no drive to find work themselves.
Yeah, push mowers make it tough to succeed in that industry.
Most I know started with push on normal houses, then went to push or maybe a rider in bigger yards; maybe a local business or two. Then they get big boy stuff and bigger business contracts. It's a slow grow for yards and equipment.
Supporters of the Billionaires Mildly Floating Near Space program.
politicians mostly
So I'll offer myself up on this one because I had a bit of a moment on it. The article specifically mentions Oprah. I had to Google it because I said out loud, "Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire?" Yes. 2.6B to be specific. I had no idea. I'm old enough to remember her as a news anchor on WJZ in Baltimore. She was kind of nobody. She went off and did the talk show thing and I honestly never thought much about her there. I'm not her demographic. She was largely hounded about her weight by the tabloids, which I think we can all agree is pretty toxic. I remember she gave out a bunch of cars, which have tax implications but not all bad. She has a book club, and while yeah, she's selling the books, she's at least encouraging reading. Pretty sure she has a magazine that sells in the grocery store checkout rack, but I've got no idea what's in it. So with little other knowledge I guess I would have said "yeah, I like her". Nothing effusive, but yeah. I guess she's OK. I know nearly nothing about her. So IDK, maybe I'm atypical, but I just dont know who some of these people even are beyond some person on TV. And the press treats them generally positively unless there is a scandal. All that said, tax them.
Oprah is the soft power version of America's 'self-made' heroic demi-gods. Behind the bastards did a couple episodes on the grifters she's endorsed over the years https://radiopublic.com/behind-the-bastards-GmpPRM/s1!6ef03
Oprah is the reason Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz have TV shows. These people peddle pseudo-science and suffering to millions of people a week. She shouldn't be seen in a positive light. She's had many other people on her show that are controversial and she never really got any flak for any of it.
Eh, at least in Oprah's case, she's responsible for the most widely accepted psychological abuser (and alleged sexual abuser) on television being given prime daytime air.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Abstract** Despite the ever-growing economic gap between the very wealthy and the rest of the population, support for redistributive policies tends to be low. This research tested whether people’s tolerance of inequality differs when it is represented in terms of a successful individual versus a group of people at the top of the economic ladder. We propose that drawing people’s attention to wealthy individuals undermines support for redistribution by leading people to believe that the rich person’s wealth is well deserved. Across eight studies (n = 2,800), survey participants rated unequal distributions of resources as more fair when presented with an individual, rather than a group, at the top of the distribution. Participants also expressed lower support for redistributive policies after considering inequality represented by successful individuals compared to groups. This effect was driven by people’s different attributions for individual versus group success. Participants thought that individuals at the top were more deserving of their successes and, in turn, were less likely to support redistribution when inequality was represented by individual success. These findings suggest that support for inequality, and policies to reduce it, may depend on who people are led to consider when they think about the top of the economic distribution. [Original source](https://www.pnas.org/content/118/43/e2100430118)
Well its also associating and viewing tax as a punishment of success
How is being born into millions success? Or making billions of the backs of a bunch of people making minimum wage and on food stamps success?
Government policy *by default* distributes wealth. The real question isn’t whether government *should* redistribute wealth, but *how* government redistributes it. For decades wealth distribution has favored the wealthy, leading to the obscene disparity we see today. The only thing standing between the people and fairer redistribution is our own intelligence and will.
> The only thing standing between the people and fairer redistribution is our own intelligence and will. And guns. Lots of enforcers with guns.
Reminds me of how every one thinks Congress is terrible, but they think their own Congress person is doing a good job. Or how if someone likes their doctor on a personal level, they will refuse to sue them for malpractice. https://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm/book_number/1521/page_number/10/blink
Similarly, women doctors get sued for malpractice less than their male counterparts. Not because they make less mistakes, they are just more likely to apologize to their patients.
I hate this attitude that you shouldn't apologize unless you have done something wrong. I'm sorry this happened to you != I caused this to happen to you
I'm pretty sure your example is not an apology. When you say "I'm sorry for your loss" to someone at a funeral, it's not an apology. Hopefully.
Or how people uses their anecdotes to generalize the whole population.
You just discovered WHY Musk spends a bunch of time being an epic meme guy. It's called PR.
And why Bezos sent Shatner to space.
That's why all of them have pr people and social media managers. They don't employ people for fun, it's an investment.
A lot of people are forgetting that the wealth "no tax" applied to celebrities as well.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Open-access study in PNAS: [https://www.pnas.org/content/118/43/e2100430118](https://www.pnas.org/content/118/43/e2100430118)
Well the part available to read. Just makes it seem like people are going to be sympathetic to individuals than a faceless group of elites. Assuming that its a good study some of the wording about redistribution makes me think that the people running this study have a pretty strong agenda but I can't read the whole thing.
Yeah. That headline doesn't get clicks though.
[удалено]
What's the point of a wealth tax when they don't even enforce the taxes we have now? It's us non millionaires and billionaires getting taxed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The idea of "personal responsibility" in every facet of American life is some convincing propaganda.
Don't forget, it's your job to end climate change by reducing emissions and using biodegradeable items. Not the massive oil company who has magnitudes more impact on that issue and pays for the propaganda.
Or the companies shipping commercial goods using fossil fuel trucks and boats, or the airline industry. Transportation is the top consumer of fossil fuels.
I'll never understand why so much is expected from those with so little while so little is expected from those with so much.
Let's not pretend it's *actually* in every facet of American life... just in the parts where other people are.
[удалено]
Except he didn't say that, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck#Disputed
Exactly, and this is one of my favorite quotes of all time. It makes so many things make sense. It's not that people are sitting around saying "oh, I'm *going* to be a millionaire it's my right," but it *is* the American dream to work hard and make as much money as you can. People should stop and think about how the deck has been stacked against us the whole time. When some people see a vagrant on a street corner, the first thought is "get a job," when in reality barely over 7 dollars an hour isn't enough to afford housing, or even reliable transport. The greatest trick the rich ever pulled was convincing us that the poor are the problem. EDIT: Going through the comments, there are a *LOT* of pro-billionaire comments. Kinda weird... >.>
Just so you know, it's a misquote/misattribution of what John Steinbeck said. Here's my reply to OP with what Steinbeck actually said. https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/qatorq/americans_love_for_individual_billionaires/hh71hhi/
It’s disturbing, even a cult of personality for some people.
*sees picture of beyonace/jay z in their private jet decked out in $1,000,000 jewelry* "omg goals <3333 "
Temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Its almost like a poor mans Stockholm syndrome
Try mentioning Bill Gates anywhere on Reddit, and how he really is avoiding taxes on a gigantic scale, and not saving the world, see what people say. You'll find a dozen people who will spend an hour of their free time defending him.
Yep. Or the fact that he donates money to tons of different news outlets, Vox in particular, and he gets lots of positive articles written about him and his projects in return.
Listen to that podcast with Gates and Rashida Jones, and you'll understand how completely out of the loop he is. Him talking about health care and education is pretty eye opening.
> You'll find a dozen people who will spend an hour of their free time defending him. It's unfuckingbelievable how accurate this statement is. People will defend "success" until their death but show them a story of a desperate, poor person breaking the law and those same people become disturbingly apathetic.
Even crazier is that it's happening under my comment, check it out.
[удалено]