5 ms·

Why have the rich suddenly became a bunch of babies? What's with all the whining? Having money isn't enough, now they want to be worshipped like feudal lords.

preek 16y ago
Where did they start whining? And when did they expect to be worshipped?
- ugh 16y ago
  Well, it’s the premise of the article, isn’t it? The whole idea is that you need to somehow appease the rich in order to do what’s necessary. That premise might be wrong but it is the premise of the article.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    No, the premise of the article is "these are some 'bad' ideas, kick them around in your head and maybe we'll think up something 'good'". It helps to read.
    - ugh 16y ago
      That’s not a premise what you are quoting there. (Please don’t make pointless accusations.) Scott Adams posits that it is necessary to somehow appease the rich. He doesn’t call them whiners but depending on your perspective that might be a fair extrapolation.
      - burgerbrain 16y ago
        "I spent some time working in the television industry, and I learned a technique that writers use. It's called "the bad version." When you feel that a plot solution exists, but you can't yet imagine it, you describe instead a bad version that has no purpose other than stimulating the other writers to imagine a better version." "With that technique in mind, I will describe some bad versions of how society might go about the job of convincing the rich to accept higher taxes on themselves. But first I need to address the illusion of fairness." That is in fact the premise^ of the article. ^"The premise of a film or screenplay is the fundamental concept that drives the plot.", or in this case, the fundamental concept that drives the article.
        ugh 16y ago
        That’s disclaimer to protect himself from any and all attacks on his positions.
        burgerbrain 16y ago
        Regardless of why he said it, it's the stated premise. Anything else is you making assumptions and accusations.
        ugh 16y ago
        Scott Adams is at the very least making the assumption that the rich need some sort of appeasement. The specific ideas he mentions aren’t really relevant to this central point.
        burgerbrain 16y ago
        "As readers might recall, Bill Gates’ father was the lead proponent of the measure. He was fighting Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and other technology chieftains who poured millions of dollars into defeating the measure because they said it would cost the state jobs. “The rich guys don’t want to pay the tax,” Gates père said on 60 Minutes Sunday night. “They’re defensive. I guess you could call it greed, I suppose. Wanting to not write another check, sure.”" - http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/11/03/why-washingtons-tax-on-the-rich-failed/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/11/03/why-washingtons-tax-o...
        ugh 16y ago
        I’m not defending the position that the rich are whiners who need appeasement, never have.
burgerbrain 16y ago
Do you similarly decry the people who spend extra money at amusement parks to skip lines? Seems like exactly the same thing as this. You pay more: you get more.
- teamonkey 16y ago
  By skipping the lines at amusement parks, those who don't pay extra have to wait even longer for their turn than they would if that system wasn't in place. So in effect, those who pay more benefit and simultaneously penalise those who do not.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    That wasn't my question. My question was do you similarly decry those people for being "a bunch of babies"?
    - teamonkey 16y ago
      If there was no fast pass system and people were saying "I'm rich, I'm entitled to a system where people like me get to the front of the queue," then yes, suck it up.
      - disc 16y ago
        That's the whole point of the article; the rich must perceive that they'll get additional value (ie., no waiting in line) before they'll voluntarily agree to pay additional taxes.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
  - ams6110 16y ago
    No because if the fast line didn't exist the regular line would be longer. total waiting, on average, is the same.
KMStraub 16y ago
I didn't think the author was whining at all--quite the opposite. Whiners endlessly complain about what's wrong and never posit a solution. Mr. Dilbert has quite a few solutions here that are "bad" albeit, but productive thoughts nonetheless. That's progress if you ask me.

preek 16y ago

Where did they start whining? And when did they expect to be worshipped?

ugh 16y ago
Well, it’s the premise of the article, isn’t it? The whole idea is that you need to somehow appease the rich in order to do what’s necessary. That premise might be wrong but it is the premise of the article.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  No, the premise of the article is "these are some 'bad' ideas, kick them around in your head and maybe we'll think up something 'good'". It helps to read.
  - ugh 16y ago
    That’s not a premise what you are quoting there. (Please don’t make pointless accusations.) Scott Adams posits that it is necessary to somehow appease the rich. He doesn’t call them whiners but depending on your perspective that might be a fair extrapolation.
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      "I spent some time working in the television industry, and I learned a technique that writers use. It's called "the bad version." When you feel that a plot solution exists, but you can't yet imagine it, you describe instead a bad version that has no purpose other than stimulating the other writers to imagine a better version." "With that technique in mind, I will describe some bad versions of how society might go about the job of convincing the rich to accept higher taxes on themselves. But first I need to address the illusion of fairness." That is in fact the premise^ of the article. ^"The premise of a film or screenplay is the fundamental concept that drives the plot.", or in this case, the fundamental concept that drives the article.
      - ugh 16y ago
        That’s disclaimer to protect himself from any and all attacks on his positions.
        burgerbrain 16y ago
        Regardless of why he said it, it's the stated premise. Anything else is you making assumptions and accusations.
        ugh 16y ago
        Scott Adams is at the very least making the assumption that the rich need some sort of appeasement. The specific ideas he mentions aren’t really relevant to this central point.
        burgerbrain 16y ago
        "As readers might recall, Bill Gates’ father was the lead proponent of the measure. He was fighting Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and other technology chieftains who poured millions of dollars into defeating the measure because they said it would cost the state jobs. “The rich guys don’t want to pay the tax,” Gates père said on 60 Minutes Sunday night. “They’re defensive. I guess you could call it greed, I suppose. Wanting to not write another check, sure.”" - http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/11/03/why-washingtons-tax-on-the-rich-failed/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/11/03/why-washingtons-tax-o...
        ugh 16y ago
        I’m not defending the position that the rich are whiners who need appeasement, never have.

burgerbrain 16y ago

Do you similarly decry the people who spend extra money at amusement parks to skip lines? Seems like exactly the same thing as this. You pay more: you get more.

teamonkey 16y ago
By skipping the lines at amusement parks, those who don't pay extra have to wait even longer for their turn than they would if that system wasn't in place. So in effect, those who pay more benefit and simultaneously penalise those who do not.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  That wasn't my question. My question was do you similarly decry those people for being "a bunch of babies"?
  - teamonkey 16y ago
    If there was no fast pass system and people were saying "I'm rich, I'm entitled to a system where people like me get to the front of the queue," then yes, suck it up.
    - disc 16y ago
      That's the whole point of the article; the rich must perceive that they'll get additional value (ie., no waiting in line) before they'll voluntarily agree to pay additional taxes.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
- ams6110 16y ago
  No because if the fast line didn't exist the regular line would be longer. total waiting, on average, is the same.

KMStraub 16y ago

I didn't think the author was whining at all--quite the opposite. Whiners endlessly complain about what's wrong and never posit a solution. Mr. Dilbert has quite a few solutions here that are "bad" albeit, but productive thoughts nonetheless. That's progress if you ask me.