Thoughts on Jordan Peterson

[Ryan]

No

You sound oddly like one of them. Seriously.

I don't get why some people are obsessed with jews. Or rich people.

[Ave]

I don't get why some people are obsessed with jews. Or rich people.

It's just scapegoating.

[Muddy]

You sound oddly like one of them. Seriously.

I don't get why some people are obsessed with jews. Or rich people.

Perhaps some people are obsessed with the rich because working and middle class incomes have been stagnant the past 40 years while the economic elite's income has increased exponentially? Perhaps some people hate the blatant anti-consumer practices going on (ex. comcast's monopoly or the shitty food at places Mcdonald's). Perhaps some people are tired of living pay check to paycheck, working jobs where what they do is detached form anything personal and meaningful? Perhaps people are tired of the lobbying going on, where the rich are using their wealth to influence and corrupt government?

Much more I could go about. And while yes, simply antagonizing all rich people like the communist did would lead to disaster, the sad, meaningless, dog-eat-dog way we live now isn't the way people have always lived throughout history, nor is it the only way we have to live now.

It's just scapegoating.

Watch the video I just posted about why ****** hated jews. It immediately confronts the elementary school idea that ****** hated jews just because he was jealous or whatever and then it goes into depth about actual reasons he hated jews. Whether you think the holocaust and all that was justified is another debate of course, but believe or not there were actual reasons he hated the jews that go far beyond the primitive notion of needing a scapegoat.

[Exodus]

Whether you think the holocaust and all that was justified is another debate of course

If you even think that merits a debate then you have a serious problem.

[Raver]

Perhaps some people are obsessed with the rich because working and middle class incomes have been stagnant the past 40 years while the economic elite's income has increased exponentially? Perhaps some people hate the blatant anti-consumer practices going on (ex. comcast's monopoly or the shitty food at places Mcdonald's). Perhaps some people are tired of living pay check to paycheck, working jobs where what they do is detached form anything personal and meaningful? Perhaps people are tired of the lobbying going on, where the rich are using their wealth to influence and corrupt government?

Much more I could go about. And while yes, simply antagonizing all rich people like the communist did would lead to disaster, the sad, meaningless, dog-eat-dog way we live now isn't the way people have always lived throughout history, nor is it the only way we have to live now.

I agree with you on this point completely.

Watch the video I just posted about why ****** hated jews. It immediately confronts the elementary school idea that ****** hated jews just because he was jealous or whatever and then it goes into depth about actual reasons he hated jews. Whether you think the holocaust and all that was justified is another debate of course, but believe or not there were actual reasons he hated the jews that go far beyond the primitive notion of needing a scapegoat.

I actually watched the entire video because I genuinely just wanted to learn why ****** hated the Jews beyond the simplistic idea that he was rejected in art school and that he was jealous of them. I will admit that the video does a good job of explaining why ****** hated the Jews, but it didn't do a good job at separating the difference between a harmful Jew and a harmless Jew. Only at the end he says that it's the elite Jews that are ruining society at the benefit of other elite Jews and elite non-Jews and that 9-5 non-Jews and 9-5 Jews are the ones that suffer the brunt of this sociopathic behavior.

He should of pointed out that ****** was wrong at creating the holocaust because his goal to exile or eliminate the elite Jews by exiling or eliminating the average harmless Jews with them is atrocious. Like I said before, it's basically an extreme form of collateral damage. The U.S. army basically does this today to a lesser extent by using drones to kill terrorists so the US army is willing to kill innocent families that the terrorists are hiding in with drones to kill the terrorists. That is essentially what ****** did in WWII with the holocaust, but to a far greater scale so it's extreme collateral damage.

[Ryan]

Perhaps some people are obsessed with the rich because working and middle class incomes have been stagnant the past 40 years while the economic elite's income has increased exponentially? Perhaps some people hate the blatant anti-consumer practices going on (ex. comcast's monopoly or the shitty food at places Mcdonald's). Perhaps some people are tired of living pay check to paycheck, working jobs where what they do is detached form anything personal and meaningful? Perhaps people are tired of the lobbying going on, where the rich are using their wealth to influence and corrupt government?

Much more I could go about. And while yes, simply antagonizing all rich people like the communist did would lead to disaster, the sad, meaningless, dog-eat-dog way we live now isn't the way people have always lived throughout history, nor is it the only way we have to live now.

Middle class? Working class? No offense but that says nothing to me because I don't believe in the idea of a class struggle. Furthermore people are going to be paid differently according to the services/products they offer. If you don't want to live paycheck to paycheck then get a better job. Save and invest in yourself, and don't blow your money on useless shit. There is plenty that you could do to improve your economical situation.

The reality is most people want to be rich but don't want to sacrifice anything. They want an easy job, with no experience or certificates required and they want to be paid well. That is not going to happen when you made yourself replaceable by anyone in the market. Corporations would rather take your job for less money because they can afford to, and then hire someone else and pay them less. It's that simple. And if people keep acting dumb and do useless jobs like being an elevator operator when technology has already replaced them then they will continue to struggle.

People can't claim to be disadvantaged for so long when opportunities are presented to them and they can't actually act on them rationally. I have seen people that earn way less than me get married so early, take enormous amount of loans to finance their lifestyle and have kids, because they couldn't stomach the idea that if you are not well off you shouldn't be doing any of these things in the first place until you can afford to. No one want to put their life on hold until they get their shit together. People don't even think of retirement because they expect everything to be handed to them now.

You can blame the rich all you want. But I have seen people make stupid choices despite all the warning signs. Despite what you have been told in school, not all paths are equal. A doctor and a nurse are not going to be paid similarly. That is not going to happen. The risks both take are different. Their responsibilities are different. The amount of study and work they do to get where they are is different. Unless you want to pay nobodies to be doctors and have a high turnover rate due to malpractice and then get sued to oblivion.

[Muddy]

Middle class? Working class? No offense but that says nothing to me because I don't believe in the idea of a class struggle. Furthermore people are going to be paid differently according to the services/products they offer. If you don't want to live paycheck to paycheck then get a better job. Save and invest in yourself, and don't blow your money on useless shit. There is plenty that you could do to improve your economical situation.

78% of American full-time workers live pay check to pay check. There simply doesn't exist enough high paying jobs to get everyone out of living pay check to pay check. Many of those who do end up successful often do so through ways that aren't exactly virtuous.

The reality is most people want to be rich but don't want to sacrifice anything. They want an easy job, with no experience or certificates required and they want to be paid well. That is not going to happen when you made yourself replaceable by anyone in the market. Corporations would rather take your job for less money because they can afford to, and then hire someone else and pay them less. It's that simple. And if people keep acting dumb and do useless jobs like being an elevator operator when technology has already replaced them then they will continue to struggle.

There would be a lot more people willing to work more if the work that did was something personal like running a small business doing something that has personal value, instead of working for the benefit of a distant CEO. Corporations have been actively undermining small businesses and independent crafts for the last couple centuries and forcing more people into monitored, regimented work where you are pressured to work your hardest every minute. College is expensive and doesn't guarantee it will pay off or make the work available anymore fulfilling. People don't want easy jobs, they want fulfilling jobs, and those are rare to come by in today's profit-above-all capitalist system.

People can't claim to be disadvantaged for so long when opportunities are presented to them and they can't actually act on them rationally. I have seen people that earn way less than me get married so early, take enormous amount of loans to finance their lifestyle and have kids, because they couldn't stomach the idea that if you are not well off you shouldn't be doing any of these things in the first place until you can afford to. No one want to put their life on hold until they get their shit together. People don't even think of retirement because they expect everything to be handed to them now.

Well yes, these is always going to exist of small amount of people who make too poor of choices and fail no matter what. Nothing can be done about those people. The problem though is that there doesn't exist enough collective effort to a lot help guide people away for making poor. People are thrown into wind today, expected to somehow succeed in an incredibly competitive environment, with no room left for cultivating a sense of nationality and brotherhood which encourage people to help one another.

You can blame the rich all you want. But I have seen people make stupid choices despite all the warning signs. Despite what you have been told in school, not all paths are equal. A doctor and a nurse are not going to be paid similarly. That is not going to happen. The risks both take are different. Their responsibilities are different. The amount of study and work they do to get where they are is different. Unless you want to pay nobodies to be doctors and have a high turnover rate due to malpractice and then get sued to oblivion.

Again, I'm not advocating for communism here. Some people do deserve to get paid more then others. But richest 100 people in America today earn far far beyond what is reasonable for the amount of effort and overall good they do. There should exist caps or extremely high progressive tax on how much a person can get paid.

[Ryan]

78% of American full-time workers live pay check to pay check. There simply doesn't exist enough high paying jobs to get everyone out of living pay check to pay check. Many of those who do end up successful often do so through ways that aren't exactly virtuous.

That statistic tells me nothing of value. It just means people aren't dying on the streets. They are paying their bills. They spend a little here and there on necessities. Sometimes they have a little extra to play with until next month. Or they cash on their credit.

There would be a lot more people willing to work more if the work that did was something personal like running a small business doing something that has personal value, instead of working for the benefit of a distant CEO. Corporations have been actively undermining small businesses and independent crafts for the last couple centuries and forcing more people into monitored, regimented work where you are pressured to work your hardest every minute. College is expensive and doesn't guarantee it will pay off or make the work available anymore fulfilling. People don't want easy jobs, they want fulfilling jobs, and those are rare to come by in today's profit-above-all capitalist system.

You can't be serious. First you said there isn't enough high paying jobs. Then you don't want any job. You want a fulfilling one? Get a social life. Seriously. You get a job to get paid, not to attain nirvana.

Well yes, these is always going to exist of small amount of people who make too poor of choices and fail no matter what. Nothing can be done about those people. The problem though is that there doesn't exist enough collective effort to a lot help guide people away for making poor. People are thrown into wind today, expected to somehow succeed in an incredibly competitive environment, with no room left for cultivating a sense of nationality and brotherhood which encourage people to help one another.

If 78% are making dumb choices what collective effort there is to guide them and how do you even achieve that without comprising democracy? These people consistently vote against their interests.

Again, I'm not advocating for communism here. Some people do deserve to get paid more then others. But richest 100 people in America today earn far far beyond what is reasonable for the amount of effort and overall good they do. There should exist caps or extremely high progressive tax on how much a person can get paid.

This is communism tho.

There would be no incentive to work. Especially high demanding and risky jobs. I don't think you understand the consequences of what you are suggesting.

[Muddy]

You get a job to get paid, not to attain nirvana.

This line of thinking is precisely the problem. This is what causes the empty, soulless, anti-consumerist society we live in today. This is what the wealthy elite (dare I say the jews) have been slowly transformation human society into the past few decades. People have every right to seek and demand work that has meaning beyond sustaining a mediocre existence.

Your whole attitude towards this topic reeks of "let them eat cake". Let me ask you, cool and manly, how is your situation? Are you of one those successful people who don't live paycheck to paycheck and enjoy a high standard of living? If so, how much of what you have did you obtain from scratch? Did you pay for own car, house, education, bills, food, etc., or did your parents/relatives pay for these things? Did you enjoy working 70 work hour weeks at a warehouse, because that's exactly what it takes have any at all of becoming anywhere near remotely successful here in America as someone who didn't have the luxury of having things handed down to them by their parents, unless of course you win the lottery or resort to theft/scams/fraud/gold digging.

[Raver]

Middle class? Working class? No offense but that says nothing to me because I don't believe in the idea of a class struggle. Furthermore people are going to be paid differently according to the services/products they offer. If you don't want to live paycheck to paycheck then get a better job. Save and invest in yourself, and don't blow your money on useless shit. There is plenty that you could do to improve your economical situation.

The reality is most people want to be rich but don't want to sacrifice anything. They want an easy job, with no experience or certificates required and they want to be paid well. That is not going to happen when you made yourself replaceable by anyone in the market. Corporations would rather take your job for less money because they can afford to, and then hire someone else and pay them less. It's that simple. And if people keep acting dumb and do useless jobs like being an elevator operator when technology has already replaced them then they will continue to struggle.

People can't claim to be disadvantaged for so long when opportunities are presented to them and they can't actually act on them rationally. I have seen people that earn way less than me get married so early, take enormous amount of loans to finance their lifestyle and have kids, because they couldn't stomach the idea that if you are not well off you shouldn't be doing any of these things in the first place until you can afford to. No one want to put their life on hold until they get their shit together. People don't even think of retirement because they expect everything to be handed to them now.

You can blame the rich all you want. But I have seen people make stupid choices despite all the warning signs. Despite what you have been told in school, not all paths are equal. A doctor and a nurse are not going to be paid similarly. That is not going to happen. The risks both take are different. Their responsibilities are different. The amount of study and work they do to get where they are is different. Unless you want to pay nobodies to be doctors and have a high turnover rate due to malpractice and then get sued to oblivion.

The issue has little to do with an upper, middle and lower class existing and mostly to do with the widening gap between the rich and working class/poor and the middle class disappearing. It's natural for society to function to have a class disparity of some sort or we end up in a communist state, which has been proven impractical in the past. As I mentioned in this following post, it's largely about the widening gap between the rich and poor due to rising inflation and salaries not keeping up:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1315234

I think most of the ire and hatred is drawn towards the rich or upper class because they see the gap between the rich and working class/poor widening rather than shrinking. When you look at statistics, that certainly is the case in terms of inflation increasing:

https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/..._inflation.jpg

However, it's not just because of inflation, it's salaries not keeping up to inflation that is the real issue so this is where the anger at the upper class or rich lies because workers are gradually getting paid less and less in relation to the cost of living.

http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-conten...e_adjusted.png

Essentially, the main issue is that our salaries are not keeping up to the rising cost of living due to inflation:

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/be/14/36/b...-of-living.jpg

So 60 years ago in 1958, you can buy yourself a house at a third of your salary, where as nowadays that is obviously not the case.

Basically, the rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer because if you do the math, it's pretty clear that salaries are not keeping up with inflation and that has been an on going issue since the 1950s. You can increase minimum wage to help deal with it, but it's just a band-aid solution for the real issue at hand, which is salaries are not keeping up to inflation. Our quality of life has decreased quite visibly and noticeably compared to the 1990s and it's obvious to see why. It's also a trend that has shown no means of slowing down and it is continuing at a steady pace.

In an ample amount of North American cities, renting or purchasing a home is not affordable because of the ludicrously high house prices, then add in the rising cost of bills, food and most items and it's not difficult to see that our quality of life decreasing. That is the main crux of the issue in the end, if our quality of life had remained stable or improved then this wouldn't be an issue, but it's a serious issue and we can't just brush it under the carpet that the poor and working class are envious of the rich when the gap between them is widening and there are numerous statistics that prove this is happening.

[Ryan]

The issue has little to do with an upper, middle and lower class existing and mostly to do with the widening gap between the rich and working class/poor and the middle class disappearing. It's natural for society to function to have a class disparity of some sort or we end up in a communist state, which has been proven impractical in the past. As I mentioned in this following post, it's largely about the widening gap between the rich and poor due to rising inflation and salaries not keeping up:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1315234

Basically, the rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer because if you do the math, it's pretty clear that salaries are not keeping up with inflation and that has been an on going issue since the 1950s. You can increase minimum wage to help deal with it, but it's just a band-aid solution for the real issue at hand, which is salaries are not keeping up to inflation. Our quality of life has decreased quite visibly and noticeably compared to the 1990s and it's obvious to see why. It's also a trend that has shown no means of slowing down and it is continuing at a steady pace.

In an ample amount of North American cities, renting or purchasing a home is not affordable because of the ludicrously high house prices, then add in the rising cost of bills, food and most items and it's not difficult to see that our quality of life decreasing. That is the main crux of the issue in the end, if our quality of life had remained stable or improved then this wouldn't be an issue, but it's a serious issue and we can't just brush it under the carpet that the poor and working class are envious of the rich when the gap between them is widening and there are numerous statistics that prove this is happening.

http://www.in2013dollars.com/1910-do...010?amount=100

2275% cumulative inflation rate in a 100 year period. That is around 3% inflation rate per year. From 1910 to 2010.

http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-conten...e_adjusted.png

Your second picture practically says salaries increased slightly when we adjust for inflation. Meaning they are keeping up with inflation. How is this an argument in your favour?

http://www.in2013dollars.com/1964-do...18?amount=2.50

Basically income increased 4% per year on average from 1964 to 2018.

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/be/14/36/b...-of-living.jpg

So 60 years ago in 1958, you can buy yourself a house at a third of your salary, where as nowadays that is obviously not the case.

House cost in 1958 is $11,975 according to your sources. Average income: $4,650 per year.

I'm not sure how you did your math but that is not a third of your salary. It's more than double/triple your salary. It's actually insanely similar to the current situation.

Sorry for not replying earlier. I didn't want to involve myself in your conversation with Ave. I like to hear others thoughts even when we disagree. I enjoyed reading your exchange.

[Raver]

http://www.in2013dollars.com/1910-do...010?amount=100

2275% cumulative inflation rate in a 100 year period. That is around 3% inflation rate per year. From 1910 to 2010.

http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-conten...e_adjusted.png

Your second picture practically says salaries increased slightly when we adjust for inflation. Meaning they are keeping up with inflation. How is this an argument in your favour?

http://www.in2013dollars.com/1964-do...18?amount=2.50

Basically income increased 4% per year on average from 1964 to 2018.

House cost in 1958 is $11,975 according to your sources. Average income: $4,650 per year.

I'm not sure how you did your math but that is not a third of your salary. It's more than double/triple your salary. It's actually insanely similar to the current situation.

Sorry for not replying earlier. I didn't want to involve myself in your conversation with Ave. I like to hear others thoughts even when we disagree. I enjoyed reading your exchange.

No worries on the late response, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Anyways, that was a typo on my part, I meant to say that the salary covers about a third of the housing cost, which is actually very different than today. I'll use different examples to illustrate my point because the main issue comes down to largely the cost of living in purchasing homes and condos rather than the cost of other items.



If you divide the cost of a new house with the average salary in 1953 like so:

9,525 / 4,011 = 2.37

It amounts to roughly the cost of a house being 2.37 times greater than a yearly salary.

Let's fast forward 30 years to see the difference:



82,600 / 21,073 = 3.91

The cost of a new house in 1983 was 3.91 times greater than the average yearly salary, which is a noticeable increase from being 2.37 times greater in 1953.

Now, let's fast forward to roughly the present day, which is 35 years later to illustrate my point further:

Let's look at October 2018, where the average American household income was $63,220:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/423...usehold-income

Also, the cost of a new American house in October 2018 was $395,000:

https://www.census.gov/construction/...uspricemon.pdf

So if we do the math, it is:

395,000 / 63,220 = 6.25

The average cost of a house in the US in 2018 was 6.25 times greater than the average US household salary in 2018, which is a big difference compared to 3.91 times greater in 1983 and 2.37 times greater in 1953. It would be important to note that the difference is significantly greater between the average US home and the average US salary if you go to American cities with ludicrous housing costs like San Francisco, New York and Seattle. However, it's only fair that I use the average US housing cost of the nation as a whole and not the average housing cost of those US cities. So basically my point is that salaries are not keeping with the rising cost of inflation specifically with the purchase of homes and condos.

Salaries may be keeping up with inflation in terms of purchasing of other items, but I think it's safe to say that the most important factor for quality of life and standard of living is the homes and condos we are able to afford to purchase. In some cities, the cost of homes and condos are still reasonable, but unfortunately in other cities they are far too expensive. This shows how slowly over time, the poor and the middle class will find affordable housing to purchase more difficult to come by as time goes by as the slow increase of housing costs is not something that our salaries are keeping up with, which means our standard of living is slowly decreasing over time.

This only benefits the 1% that are easily able to profit off the increasing housing costs, for which they sell once the price increases or simply allow lower class citizens to rent. Let's not forget another important factor here. In 1953, it was typical of the majority of households to have the husband working with one salary to provide the income for the entire family, while the wife provided at home. In 1983, you were more likely to find women working to help provide for the household and family compared to 1953, but still not as much as today. Finally, in 2018 it is safe to say that the majority of women help provide an income for the family along with the men.

So not only have housing prices increased considerably compared to the household salary, we now need two incomes instead of one income like we did in 1953 to provide for the family making the problem even worse than it appears. Some say the income disparity occurred due to the increase of the labor market from women entering the workforce, but that is another debate in and of itself and this situation could have other factors contributing. Also, to be fair I used the household income in 2018 rather than a single income in 2018, which would of revealed a greater disparity between the average income and the cost of new homes.