The culture of Rape, Bill Cosby Story

[Meshugger]

If proven true...Goddammit Bill, you were one of the good guys!

[Namutree]

 

Proper wealth redistribution in society, related to income size, would take much of their power away. As long as there is no such thing they can funnel their seemingly infinite resources into making charges go away, pay teams of lawyers to stall courts or find loopholes etc.

 

There really is no reason for an actor to be a millionaire in this universe, or any other. For all intents and purposes, their job contributes less to the society than a janitor. That doesn't mean that they should starve, but uncontrolled wealth (regardless of occupation) inevitably leads to two different justice systems, one for the affluent and one for the rest.

Go be a commie somewhere else. 

Proper wealth distribution my ass, we went through this crap. No one had anything, now I'm sitting beside a computer with a cold drink with my secretary with big **** under my desk and 40 workers that don't earn as much as me combined. This is the only way to live my friend.

 

I don't recall the socialist countries having very good justice systems either.

[Blarghagh]

If proven true...Goddammit Bill, you were one of the good guys!

 

 

What are you talking about? Cosby is infamous for how horribly he treated cast and crew.

[BruceVC]

 

If proven true...Goddammit Bill, you were one of the good guys!

 

 

What are you talking about? Cosby is infamous for how horribly he treated cast and crew.

 

 

I think he means his contribution towards the entertainment industry and as mentioned previously his endeavours to achieve  racial harmony

[BruceVC]

 

Proper wealth redistribution in society, related to income size, would take much of their power away. As long as there is no such thing they can funnel their seemingly infinite resources into making charges go away, pay teams of lawyers to stall courts or find loopholes etc.

 

There really is no reason for an actor to be a millionaire in this universe, or any other. For all intents and purposes, their job contributes less to the society than a janitor. That doesn't mean that they should starve, but uncontrolled wealth (regardless of occupation) inevitably leads to two different justice systems, one for the affluent and one for the rest.

Go be a commie somewhere else. 

Proper wealth distribution my ass, we went through this crap. No one had anything, now I'm sitting beside a computer with a cold drink with my secretary with big **** under my desk and 40 workers that don't earn as much as me combined. This is the only way to live my friend.

 

 

I agree with Sharp_One that I don't see wealth distribution as a solution or something that would benefit society in the long term but I also don't think its fair that people with money do at times seem to get a better deal within the justice systems of various countries because they can afford very good lawyers

 

Of course I'm not suggesting that wealthy people can  necessarily get away with egregious crimes just because they are rich

[Blarghagh]

Yes, but it's been well documented that he's not a nice guy.

[BruceVC]

Yes, but it's been well documented that he's not a nice guy.

I hear you, that is true

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I'm sitting beside a computer with a cold drink with my secretary with big **** under my desk and 40 workers that don't earn as much as me combined. This is the only way to live my friend.

 

 

So, basically, you're saying every 42nd person should live well and **** the rest?

[Namutree]

 

I'm sitting beside a computer with a cold drink with my secretary with big **** under my desk and 40 workers that don't earn as much as me combined. This is the only way to live my friend.

 

 

So, basically, you're saying every 42nd person should live well and **** the rest?

 

Maybe he's living very well, and they're all merely living well.

[JadedWolf]

The sad part about this, whether Cosby is guilty or not, is seeing how the good things Cosby stands for -taking responsibility, getting your act together, and making something of yourself- are now gleefully ridiculed. The whole thing started with some comedian saying:

 

"It’s even worse because Bill Cosby has the f*#kin’ smuggest old man black persona that I hate. He gets on TV, ‘Pull your pants up black people, I was on TV in the ‘80s! I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom!’ Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby, so turn the crazy down a couple of notches."

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Maybe he's living very well, and they're all merely living well.

 

 

I'm pretty sure wealth is a finite resource. For every dollars he has, there's someone else with those dollars not in their pockets.

[Namutree]

 

Maybe he's living very well, and they're all merely living well.

 

 

I'm pretty sure wealth is a finite resource. For every dollars he has, there's someone else with those dollars not in their pockets.

 

That's mostly wrong. Wealth is all about how you use those resources. You can be productive and make the resources you control more valuable, or you can be unproductive and waste said resources. 

 

I'm doing pretty well financially, and I was given very little resources (by American standards). Heck my land only costed about $1,000. That's about a months rent in New York. I've taken this area and made it pretty productive. So like I said, it's not as much about the amount of resources you are given; as much as it is about how you use them.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Namutree

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Maybe he's living very well, and they're all merely living well.

 

 

I'm pretty sure wealth is a finite resource. For every dollars he has, there's someone else with those dollars not in their pockets.

 

That's mostly wrong. Wealth is all about how you use those resources. You can be productive and make the resources you control more valuable, or you can be unproductive and waste said resources. 

 

I'm doing pretty well financially, and I was given very little resources (by American standards). Heck my land only costed about $1,000. That's about a months rent in New York. I've taken this area and made it pretty productive. So like I said, it's not as much about the amount of resources you are given; as much as it is about how you use them.

 

 

That... actually has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Which is my fault, of course, because "wealth" is an abstract concept and money isn't a static thing that just floats around doing nothing... anyways, what I've meant is that a company has a finite amount of resources for paying employees, and I'm pretty sure that if you're paying a single employee more than 40 times as much as you're paying another employee, something doesn't work as it should. (For a given value of "should", that is.)

[JadedWolf]

 

 

I'm sitting beside a computer with a cold drink with my secretary with big **** under my desk and 40 workers that don't earn as much as me combined. This is the only way to live my friend.

 

 

So, basically, you're saying every 42nd person should live well and **** the rest?

 

Maybe he's living very well, and they're all merely living well.

 

 

Maybe he's living well, and they're all merely living? We can't tell, we don't know the situation. But if I remember correctly, the gentleman is from Poland. Now, there must be a reason why Poles come in droves to countries such as the one I live in where they sleep in broom closets and work for rates that the natives literally can't work for (because the pay doesn't cover the expenses of living here, unless of course you live in a broom closet with 8 other guys)... Nonetheless, the attitude that the only way to live is to make much more money than other people is incredibly toxic. It's not a sin to want to be successful, don't get me wrong. But if your definition of successful is "I have a secretary with big boobies that I can shag if I want to, I earn more money than all the stooges that work for me combined and this is the only way to live!" then you are a giant douchebag.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Basically I'm saying that everybody is responsible for himself. 

If someone didn't care for achieving anything in his/her life then it's his/her own fault they don't have much.

Sorry, I spend to much time earning and fighting my way up for someone telling me I should share with the "less fortunate". It pisses me of, I wasn't fortunate! I worked my ass of to be where I am today. Someone who didn't put any work, who only can swing a hammer or cannot operate anything more complicated than screwdriver is in no position to "share wealth" with me.

 

 

Oh, I'm sure your work is more valuable (for a given definition of valuable) to your company than another dude's work whose contribution stops at "can swing a hammer", I just find the notion of "40 times as valuable" questionable unless you're some sort of super-genius inventor type whose work literally can't be replicated by anyone else in the world.

[Namutree]

Wow, this went off topic quickly. Uh.... Bill Cosby was a douche to the crew of his show? That's unfortunate.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Basically I'm saying that everybody is responsible for himself. 

If someone didn't care for achieving anything in his/her life then it's his/her own fault they don't have much.

Sorry, I spend to much time earning and fighting my way up for someone telling me I should share with the "less fortunate". It pisses me of, I wasn't fortunate! I worked my ass of to be where I am today. Someone who didn't put any work, who only can swing a hammer or cannot operate anything more complicated than screwdriver is in no position to "share wealth" with me.

 

 

Oh, I'm sure your work is more valuable (for a given definition of valuable) to your company than another dude's work whose contribution stops at "can swing a hammer", I just find the notion of "40 times as valuable" questionable unless you're some sort of super-genius inventor type whose work literally can't be replicated by anyone else in the world.

 

 

I hear what you saying and you right. A person doesn't want to come across as elitist and dismissive of people who earn less money than them and the reasons they earn less money will be due to  a number of factors

 

Sharps biggest problem is how he sometimes creates his sentences and makes a point, he comes across a certain way that I think is misunderstood or lost a little in translation.  Because I also agree with him that why  must  a person fell guilty or not reap the financial benefits of working hard?

 

But you  should never really compare a labourers job description to someone in corporate, both are important but obviously the person in corporate is probably more educated and will earn more money ?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

What if i earn 40 times more for company than another employee?

 

 

Sorry, didn't notice the edit until now. I find the idea questionable, but you're welcome to show me how that would be possible.

Edited November 21, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

The sad part about this, whether Cosby is guilty or not, is seeing how the good things Cosby stands for -taking responsibility, getting your act together, and making something of yourself- are now gleefully ridiculed. The whole thing started with some comedian saying:

 

"It’s even worse because Bill Cosby has the f*#kin’ smuggest old man black persona that I hate. He gets on TV, ‘Pull your pants up black people, I was on TV in the ‘80s! I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom!’ Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby, so turn the crazy down a couple of notches."

 

That's interesting, is that how this new attention on Cosby  came about ? I didn't know the history

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Proper wealth redistribution in society, related to income size, would take much of their power away. As long as there is no such thing they can funnel their seemingly infinite resources into making charges go away, pay teams of lawyers to stall courts or find loopholes etc.

 

There really is no reason for an actor to be a millionaire in this universe, or any other. For all intents and purposes, their job contributes less to the society than a janitor. That doesn't mean that they should starve, but uncontrolled wealth (regardless of occupation) inevitably leads to two different justice systems, one for the affluent and one for the rest.

Go be a commie somewhere else. 

Proper wealth distribution my ass, we went through this crap. No one had anything, now I'm sitting beside a computer with a cold drink with my secretary with big **** under my desk and 40 workers that don't earn as much as me combined. This is the only way to live my friend.

 

 

The only way to live for you, but not for the other half of your country that is now in London working in call centers.

 

This statement expresses perfectly what's wrong with the system today and the people in charge.

 

By the way, nordic countries in general have very progressive taxation leading to wealth redistribution. You don't have to be a communist, or a socialist to know the damning effects of the concentration of capital in too few hands.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

 

 

What if i earn 40 times more for company than another employee?

 

 

Sorry, didn't notice the edit until now. I find the idea questionable, but you're welcome to show me how that would be possible.

 

 

That's is very possible, for example your target could be $ 100K a month. And there could be junior staff  who could earn $2.5 K month who have no target but help with deals or are admin staff

 

So it  is feasible if you look at sales targets

 

That doesn't mean your salary is 40 x more than other people but you are directly responsible for generating 40 x more revenue

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

I'm sitting beside a computer with a cold drink with my secretary with big **** under my desk and 40 workers that don't earn as much as me combined. This is the only way to live my friend.

 

 

So, basically, you're saying every 42nd person should live well and **** the rest?

 

 

Basically I'm saying that everybody is responsible for himself. 

If someone didn't care for achieving anything in his/her life then it's his/her own fault they don't have much.

Sorry, I spend to much time earning and fighting my way up for someone telling me I should share with the "less fortunate". It pisses me of, I wasn't fortunate! I worked my ass of to be where I am today. Someone who didn't put any work, who only can swing a hammer or cannot operate anything more complicated than screwdriver is in no position to "share wealth" with me.

 

 

That... actually has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Which is my fault, of course, because "wealth" is an abstract concept and money isn't a static thing that just floats around doing nothing... anyways, what I've meant is that a company has a finite amount of resources for paying employees, and I'm pretty sure that if you're paying a single employee more than 40 times as much as you're paying another employee, something doesn't work as it should. (For a given value of "should", that is.)

But what if my work is 40 times more important than another employee work? What if i earn 40 times more for company than another employee?

 

 

This all being said, we all should be equal in the face of the court when charged or being guilty of the same crime.

 

 

Your work is not 40 times more important than another employee, don't delude yourself. If it is, you should be able to get by, by firing all of them and working instead of all of them, all the time. 

 

To get where you are you benefited from the availability of such things as education, a regulated market, the work of other companies, a government making sure someone doesn't simply rob you etc. You didn't create your wealth out of thin air, you created it within a system. All these things cost money and for the everyone to have the opportunity to do what you did money needs to be pumped back into the system. From those that have little, little can be taken - from those that have a lot, a bigger chunk should be taken. 

 

If you really believe you did it all on your own you're free to go to a desert island and make a thriving company there with pieces of wood, few coconuts and a pet monkey.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I hear what you saying and you right. A person doesn't want to come across as elitist and dismissive of people who earn less money than them and the reasons they earn less money will be due to  a number of factors

 

Sharps biggest problem is how he sometimes creates his sentences and makes a point, he comes across a certain way that I think is misunderstood or lost a little in translation.  Because I also agree with him that why  must  a person fell guilty or not reap the financial benefits of working hard?

 

But you  should never really compare a labourers job description to someone in corporate, both are important but obviously the person in corporate is probably more educated and will earn more money ?

 

 

 

I think you might be reading him overly charitably. (Also, if he's such a big shot, he surely knows enough English to express himself in exactly the way he means to - after all, I'm basically a nobody who learned the language as an autodidact, yet here I am, being understood - so a person with the unquestionably higher amount of talent and resources he has probably also can manage to accomplish the same feat.)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the person in corporate is probably more educated and will earn more money", could you please clarify that?

 

 

That's is very possible, for example your target could be $ 100K a month. And there could be junior staff  who could earn $2.5 K month who have no target but help with deals or are admin staff

 

 

Oh, but surely the one who's bringing in 100k in a month probably deals with a different clientele than the person who earns 2.5k, so it's not like they started from the same position. The comparison is therefore unfair.

Edited November 21, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

Social media sure has made the court of public opinion special

[BruceVC]

 

 

I hear what you saying and you right. A person doesn't want to come across as elitist and dismissive of people who earn less money than them and the reasons they earn less money will be due to  a number of factors

 

Sharps biggest problem is how he sometimes creates his sentences and makes a point, he comes across a certain way that I think is misunderstood or lost a little in translation.  Because I also agree with him that why  must  a person fell guilty or not reap the financial benefits of working hard?

 

But you  should never really compare a labourers job description to someone in corporate, both are important but obviously the person in corporate is probably more educated and will earn more money ?

 

 

 

I think you might be reading him overly charitably. (Also, if he's such a big shot, he surely knows enough English to express himself in exactly the way he means to - after all, I'm basically a nobody who learned the language as an autodidact, yet here I am, being understood - so a person with the unquestionably higher amount of talent and resources he has probably also can manage to accomplish the same feat.)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the person in corporate is probably more educated and will earn more money", could you please clarify that?

 

 

That's is very possible, for example your target could be $ 100K a month. And there could be junior staff  who could earn $2.5 K month who have no target but help with deals or are admin staff

 

 

Oh, but surely the one who's bringing in 100k in a month probably deals with a different clientele than the person who earns 2.5k, so it's not like they started from the same position. The comparison is therefore unfair.

 

 

You may be right about Sharp, also as several people have alluded to there is this perception about Polish people that they  end up doing menial jobs throughout Europe. So he is obviously proud of what he has accomplished which may explain his over-enthusiasm in describing his job

 

 

But going back to the 40x question. Remember this whole debate started because he said he  has 40 employees who work under him and he should be earning 40 x what they earn because he brings in 40 x the revenue. You questioned how this would be possible?

 

He could honestly be a  factory manager who is also responsible for sales. So his 40 staff members work in a warehouse doing production. They wouldn't get paid a lot but he gets commission on sales that means he really can earn  more than 40x what they earn. The 40 labourers do relatively simple work and truthfully couldn't do his job

 

But of course what we need to recognise in this scenario is " what would happen to him without the 40 x staff " ...so it does seem like an unfair structure