You probably can’t change their mind, but you can remember that their opinion doesn’t define you. And also you have just as much power over them (that which they grant you), which you can use to try to instill in them a sense of living their own life instead of working for the glory of the Corpos.
They heard that Millennials and Gen Z like fatalistic humor and decided to try and cash in on it. But, like… it’s not fun when it’s a corporation saying “Ha ha, you’ll never retire.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Gandhi
tl;dr: Gandhi in Civ V had the capability of going crazy nuclear, and apparently there wasn’t really a bug in any earlier games about this. Sid Meyer says such a bug wouldn’t even have been possible. Mandela Effect? Groupthink? Mass delusion? Who knows.
Re: inflation, growth in pure gross/intake has to increase to match the currency devaluation, and that can mostly be done by adjusting your prices in line with inflation. Employee count, market shares etc. can all hold steady, all else being equal.
Survivor of crime becomes crime-fighter, survivor of catastrophe saves people from disasters.
“Be the person you needed when you were younger” feels applicable.
It would be helpful if it weren’t so profitable for media organizations to spend so much time convincing people that other people aren’t kind, so why bother.
I definitely get that from a reasonable perspective. But then I think about the words being used, and part of me wants terms like “upper” and “middle” to represent portions of a whole that have broadly similar sizes. But that doesn’t really reflect the realities of the meaningful differences between two different lives usually meant by the terms, so that part of me needs to take a back seat.
I’m not even sure I would say we are arguing. You provided your version I offered mine. We disagree, maybe, but I don’t think either of us is concerned enough to make a concerted effort to change the other’s opinion.
Yes, I did just argue over the semantics of argument itself. What of it? This is America the Internet, after all.
I’d go with 20% as upper class. I think of “wealthy” as having money that lets you come and go as you please, just buy a fancy car if you want without really having to think about the finances of it.
There is a D&D-type game that measures wealth as a rating of 0 to 5, and you can make essentially unlimited purchases of items costing up to 1 below your wealth rating essentially at-will. So someone can buy a sandwich whenever, someone else could take a decent vacation/cruise whenever, another could buy a decent car without worry, one could buy a nice house like it’s nothing, and finally someone who could buy a mansion or private jet without real concern. Those in the couple-hundred-million to billions range.
I’d draw the Wealthy line somewhere in the mid-4 range on that scale. You could also consider it as “the point where safe/moderate investments could continue supplying a family plenty of comfort without working for two+ generations”.
Next: replacing the customers with kiosks
I was curious how many U.S. households earn at least $170k, and this website responded to asking about 170k by saying that the 80th percentile is $165,068.
Infuriating. The point of advancing society and dividing labor into specialties is so that we can create more for our world than if each of us tried to a little bit of everything (farming, crafting, medicine, etc.) beyond the small amounts we choose for joy or satisfaction. And then with that, we get to have more free time, because we actually only need so much to make our society work and improve at a reasonable pace.
The people who think we all need to bust our asses got hoodwinked by the ownership class into producing even more for their overlords.