4 ms·

Gee, I dunno, maybe think about it for a second. What does a 65 year-old lower middle-class retiree with some money stashed in a 401(k) have in common with an E

Gee, I dunno, maybe think about it for a second. What does a 65 year-old lower middle-class retiree with some money stashed in a 401(k) have in common with an ExxonMobil shareholder aside from the need to generate as much profit as possible? Do you really think this makes sense from a public policy perspective, to pit the retirement needs of the old against, e.g., the environmental health of the young? Please spare me the purely symbolic and utterly meaningless "but they are shareholders, too" argument. Sure. Me and Warren Buffet, we're just the same! It is quite literally dumb and fucked up to tie comfortable retirement to things like releasing carbon into the atmosphere, or defense industry profits, or Wal-Mart's quarterly profits, or to the stability of Jeff Bezos' marriage.

lovecg 7y ago
> Do you really think this makes sense from a public policy perspective, to pit the retirement needs of the old against, e.g., the environmental health of the young? But couldn’t you argue in exactly the same way for disenfranchisement? Do you think retired people should be allowed to vote?
- harimau777 7y ago
  I think that argument actually supports their point. I believe that everyone has a human right to vote. However, retired people have generally already established themselves; therefore, the changes that government makes, particularly on social issues, has minimal effect on them. Therefore, I think its unfair for the generation who is still establishing themselves not to be held hostage to the previous generation's vision of society.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    > Therefore, I think [it's] unfair for the generation who is still establishing themselves not to be held hostage to the previous generation's vision of society. I think you have one more negation than you intended in that sentence.
    - harimau777 7y ago
      Good catch, my bad
bluGill 7y ago
Retirement funds are the largest shareholder of all. The 65 year old alone isn't much, but all of them combined together are more than any other category of shareholder. Middle class retirement accounts own more stock than the rich.

lovecg 7y ago

> Do you really think this makes sense from a public policy perspective, to pit the retirement needs of the old against, e.g., the environmental health of the young? But couldn’t you argue in exactly the same way for disenfranchisement? Do you think retired people should be allowed to vote?

harimau777 7y ago
I think that argument actually supports their point. I believe that everyone has a human right to vote. However, retired people have generally already established themselves; therefore, the changes that government makes, particularly on social issues, has minimal effect on them. Therefore, I think its unfair for the generation who is still establishing themselves not to be held hostage to the previous generation's vision of society.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  > Therefore, I think [it's] unfair for the generation who is still establishing themselves not to be held hostage to the previous generation's vision of society. I think you have one more negation than you intended in that sentence.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    Good catch, my bad

bluGill 7y ago

Retirement funds are the largest shareholder of all. The 65 year old alone isn't much, but all of them combined together are more than any other category of shareholder. Middle class retirement accounts own more stock than the rich.