Work hard or don't work hard?

Liberals keep saying immigrants are superior to whites because they work harder, then they turn around and tell white yuppies they are idiots who have been conned into working so hard by evil capitalists and they are happier digging drainage ditches, picking lettuce or wiping old people's asses for a living.

So which is it? Or is this yet another one of your double standards? If you had to tell everyone in the world to work hard or not work hard what would you tell them?

Serfs work for vassals, vassals serve their lords.  What's so hard to understand?

basically immigrants do the jobs whites dont want to do

Inmigrants apreciate the work and the hard earned paycheck... not like the lazy ass fuck locals.



-
Evil is just a Point of View.

>>2
Immigrants are serfs, whites are vassals? Then who are the lords?

>>3
Not all whites and not just whites. The poor don't want to work hard and have a normal job so the illegals take their place. Mexicans work harder than inner city blacks and we didn't have to pay their mother's child benefit or provide them with a free education. So if your argument is an attack on whites it fails.

>>4
So are you saying yuppies don't work hard? If that is the case they mustn't be wasting their time and the free market is a good idea.

>>5
Immigrants are serfs, whites are vassals? Then who are the lords?
Jews?

I'm agree with Anonymous Nº5...

-
Evil is just a Point of View.

>>6
Jews and rich whites it seems.

>>7
thx. It's pretty obvious, I don't see why liberals have a problem with it.

Liberals keep saying immigrants are superior to whites because they work harder, then they turn around and tell white yuppies they are idiots who have been conned into working so hard [etc]
I guess this means I'm not a liberal anymore. That's news to me.

>>9
Whatever makes you happy.

If you work hard and save the money you earn, then you'll be all right by the time the capitalists leave your area.

If you work hard, spend like you're "nigger rich", and then expect the government to care for you when the capitalists leave your area, then you're just fucking stupid.

>>11
What do you mean by "the capitalists leave your area"?

>>12
Have you ever read any sentences with the words "factory" and "closing" put together?  Have you ever heard of a nation called Argentina?  Have you in fact avoided reading any news sources for the last 40 years?

Why do you pretend to not understand the clear English I fucking post, shitmaroon?

>>13
You should have been more specific. For instance a capitalist could easily pick up his top hat, monocle and cuban cigar and leave whilst leaving his factory behind to continue replenishing his bank account.

>>14
You should have been more aware of current events and attitudes.  The capitalist isn't playing the fantasy game you've built up in your mind.  Sure, that factory left in Indiana could keep feeding his bank account, but if he MOVES IT to a maquiladora, the factory can feed MOAR money into his bank account.  That means he can get a 200ft yacht instead of a pissant 100ft one.

Your vision of "landed gentry" expired with the Dodo bird.  The modern breed of capitalist won't rest until they own EVERYTHING and then demand that what they don't own (ourselves) pay them to rent time on what they own.  These vicious assholes are working to enslave us all.  DUH FUCKING DUH, sparky!

>>15
It was easier for me to ask than to rush to an assumption only to find out that's not what you meant.

>>15
That won't happen if you save.

>>17

What makes RedCream a moron is the fact that it's gonna happen regardless if you save or not.

>>18
That depends on what you invest and save in. For example if you use your savings to set up a gun club and start recruiting certain members into a militia you've got yourself an interesting arrangement right there.

>>18
What makes YOU a moron instead is that if it's gonna happen anyway, saving money and otherwise capitalizing yourself will make you better off regardless of what happens.

>>20
That still depends on what you invest and save in.

The real issue is food, goods and resources not labor you fucking idiots.

God, all of you.. die in retarded flames!

>>20
You don't need to save as long as you have a job that can't be outsourced or taken by an immigrant (Government positions).

Also most 'capitalists' remain in the same place, it's their factories and businesses that move.

>>21
There's no such thing as "you don't need to save", you retard.  If you don't save then you're constantly at the mercy of the owners of large-dollar items.  They set the terms, and you just have to pay MOAR money through making payments.  Yes, there are exceptions, like furniture, where America has a glut and the furniture suppliers are themselves at the disadvantage ... but those exceptions merely test the rule as TRUE.

Fact facts, sparky:  Without savings, you're MEAT.  Even if you could get coverage for a large or emergency expense, YOU wouldn't be setting the terms.  SLAVE!

(212) 535-1310

>>22
That has no bearing on the argument. Telling rich people they are idiots for working hard doesn't make any sense.

>>23
So become a capitalist and improve the marketability of your skills. The only reason jobs are outsources is because some impoverished 3rd worlder can do as good a job as you can. If that doesn't flash any warning lights there is something wrong with YOU, not the invisible hand of the free market.

>>24
Sorry you misunderstood. My argument is not "you don't need to save", it is "some savings don't help whilst others do, thus it also depends on what you invest and save in". You would not for instance place your money in a Zimbabwean bank account, you would research your options and choose a long standing reputable mutual fund.

>>26
The impoverished 3rd worlder doesn't have the comparatively huge economic overhead, namely rent/mortgage, taxes, insurance, and so on.  Perhaps you'd agree that it's perfectly OK to just tell your landlord or bank that they have to accept 3rd-world amounts of payments from you?

>>27
I was just using Zimbabwean banks as an example. If I did have my savings in a Zimbabwean bank, assuming they aren't stolen, I would exchange them for the currency the company I owe uses before repaying them.

>>24
How will saving help you purchase 'large-dollar items' (what are these anyway)? Most people would have to live with their parents and save until they were 50 to buy a house, but they can get one in their 20's by going into debt.

Also unless you're super rich you can't pay medical bills without coverage. All you can do is look for the provider with the best terms.

>>26

The market system works on scarcity.  With multinationals, labor is never scarce, at least until all people have equivalent income levels.

Eventually it'll reach equilibrium with the US standard of living being on a level with the third world.  The consumer market will also have to reach this equilibrium.

Moral of the story?  Invest in third world markets, America's must decline in comparison.

>>29
You're kidding, right?  You really can't imagine how saving money will eventually build up enough of an amount that a high-priced item can be purchased?

Do you know what "math" is?  Are you really this culturally programmed to be financially dense?

At any rate -- and WHOA NELLIE, we're gonna use some o' tha' thar math stuff! -- when you limit yourself to buying at no more than 2.5 times your yearly income, and you maintain a strong and disciplined savings rate of at least 20%, then it should only take about 13 years (2.5/.2) to save up enough to pay cash for that home.  Of course, too many Amerifreaks are buying (i.e. renting from a bank) a home for a LOT over 2.5 times their income.  Of course, too many Amerifucks are unable to save 20% of their yearly income, and even if they did manage to pack it away, by Xmas they just spend it all anyway.  (Gotta be "nigger rich".)

If you start saving at around 25 to 30, then by age 40 you should be ready to move into a modest home that you have essentially all the money for.  If there is a loan (i.e. a loser financial move) that you have to make, it won't be for the vast majority of the purchase price ... no, it'll be for the minority of the purchase price that you failed to cover due to some life event over that 13 years.

P.S.  Home, car, kids -- these are all large-dollar items.  Just because you've been BRAINWASHED into thinking that NOTHING is a big-ticket item (through the use of credit and payments), doesn't mean that there isn't a clear scale of prices for items.  You fuckwit!

Amerifucks, as you call them, would be able to save 20% if the government didn't rape the shit out of them by making them pay taxes that add up to 30% of their income.

>>30
So? If 3rd worlders are working for such low wages companies calculate it is profitable to move their entire industry abroad then they really need those jobs. 3rd worlders are people too and the more efficient the economy the closer we get to a world where every country is a 1st world country. Also since we have better education opportunities and they do not it is better overall if we utilise it more instead of getting an easy ride. The invisible hand of the free market is fair aswell as efficient.

>>32
The middle class worker pays about 40% of his income to all levels of government, including all taxes and fees.  That part is true, and obviously it puts great pressure on the ability to save.  HOWEVER, even after paying that 40%, you can still save 20% by living modestly in the first place.  People today wouldn't be caught dead living the way their parents lived in the 1960s ... yet that modest living was perfectly fine.  What we have today is a failure to control spending.  The government does it, and we do it.  It's time to stop living in denial.

>>33
If capital is free to move, yet workers aren't, then the only thing we're getting close to is a world filled with Second World nations, AT BEST.  There will be NO First World nations, since the consumers in those economies will be as extinct as the Dodo bird.

The invisible hand of the market doesn't understand fairness.  It only understands money.  If one man has a great excess of money, while another man starves, the invisible hand doesn't move at all.

>>31

so untill he is 40 he is gonna live with his parents?

to be educated enough to save enough for a modest house, even over that time period he will need to be educated at a reasonably high level, and this means he probably wont be coming out of school untill early to mid 20's.

also the chances are by 40 he will have children, either because he really wants them or because his partner does, now this doesnt actually add to the price of the house because his partner would be helping to fund it, but can you seriously expect him to not spoil his child at christmas? sure at an older age its less important but when the kid is at lower school then he is gonna want/need to fit in with a social group for his development as a person and lets face it, having all these new things is a BIG part of their lives at that age.  but i digress, the point is - although i agree with most of what you have said i think your need to swear at the previous reply made you leave some holes in your arguement, and even with this saving plan of yours a large loan at around the 50% of the value of the house is still likely.  feel free to flame me too

>>35
Have you ever heard of renting a cheap apartment?  By counting:

- homes and condos for sale
- homes, condos and apartments for rent
- vacation homes

... then America's got about a 13% vacancy rate.  There's no shortage of housing.  So:  RENT.  Rent cheap and modest, and save the money you free up thereby.  In the bubble areas like CA, FL, MA and TX, rents are running about HALF of the similarly mortgaged properties.  If the property costs $2500 to buy, the rent only runs you $1250.  Isn't it fuckin' ASTONISHING to figure out that that's $1250/mo that you simply keep in your bank account?

You stupid fuckers are amazing.  It's like you never heard of living modestly and saving money.  Well, millions of people are now "throwing their money away on a mortgage" since they will just be foreclosed out of them.  Who's laughing now?

P.S.  Most education people merely get a 4-yr degree.  That puts them into the job market by 22 to 23.  Pull the other leg, assface, with your "mid 20s" LIE.

RedCream, are you perchance a ballin' real estate agent with a large sum in the bank from all the saving you do?  Or are you preaching from your mom's basement like the rest of /newpol/?

>>37
I'm preaching from a condition of healthy savings, from a rental unit.  I practice what I preach.  What the fuck are YOU doing, douchelick?

>>38
So how much money have you saved up, RedCream?  You going to be ready to pay off your modest 2 bedroom dream home sometime this decade or the next without a loan? 

>>34
You did not factor in those workers which 3rd world countries do not have. Also in this situation, as always, the invisible hand is fair since it provides jobs for impoverished 3rd worlders and encourages westerners to make full use of their education opportunities.

>>39
About $40K.  Considering the price of natural gas around here, and my own needs, a 1BR home is more suitable.  I'm nearly there for my area, except I have other goals worth covering in the interim, like a replacement car with far better gas mileage, and the growing specter of unemployment.  So, it would be foolish just to sink the savings into a house just in time to become unemployed.  I can wait a few more years.

I never think that a house is a "dream" fulfillment device, so I really don't understand what you're saying otherwise.

And you STILL haven't said what YOU are doing, cockgobbler.

>>41

Hey RC, just wondering, how much credit card debt do you have? I am 21 with $0 of CC debt.

When I tell my friends this, they think I'm mad or something. Is it really that hard to not put shit on CC and rely on a Debt Card?

>>42
CC debt = $0.  Yes, the masses are fucking deranged with all their "nigger rich" debts.

>>42
>>43

20, never had a credit card.

People need to grow a clue.

>>1

Liberal #1 =! Liberal #2

End of discussion.

>>44

it's good to have a credit card but pay it off every month.

>>31
>>34
Mathes test

The average 25 year old american with a degree earns about $40,000 per year: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States)

2.5 times this American's income is $100,000
20% of this American's salary is $8,000

It will take about 12.5 years to purchase a house using your criteria (assuming that the average America has constant health and salary, and housing prices remain stable).

Is it even possible to by a house in America for $100,000? I'm asking because live in England where the average 3 bedroomed house's price is about £300,000, while the salary is for an average 25 year old is £20,000. (http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Country=United_Kingdom/Salary/by_Age)

>>36
So you're renting while you save money to purchase a house so you don't have to live with your parents? Sounds like a good system.

I am 22 and have £100000 tied up in stocks.

Working women have pushed the cost of everything up. House prices are based off families with two incomes.

>>49

really? I could have sworn it had something to do with a severe reliance on credit. Meh, guess I'll go rip up my degree and beat my girlfriend.

>>47
You see, that's where you're failing.  You don't even believe that it's possible to obtain a home in the USA for $100K.  I assure you, it certainly is.  In many coastal areas, it seems impossible ... but the average income is pushed upward similarly, so it returns to possibility.  HOWEVER, the average size of the American home has nearly doubled, so you can see what has really happened here -- people have been buying more home than they could really afford.

The point I'm trying to make is that you should not buy outside 2.5 times your income.  If too many homes in your area are above that, then you should leave the area ... or rent ... since the alternative is just to rent a home from a bank until the financial circumstances of your life go bad (which over 30 years of most mortgages, is LIKELY) and you're forced into foreclosure or extended mortgaging.

It SHOULD be a basic financial truth that you should NOT buy the most expensive thing in your life on nearly 100% credit terms.  Paying the highest possible cost of credit is the very definition of stupid.

Cost of Jewdit moar like AMIRITE??!?!?!?!

>>51
I never said I didn't believe you could buy a house in America for $100K I said I didn't know how much the average American house cost so I couldn't determine what you could buy for $100K.

The average house prices I mentioned at >>47 are for the UK so to leave the "area" I'd have to emigrate (possibly to Australia or New Zealand).

Also there are no houses to rent in the UK because there aren't enough houses to do that (why rent your property when you can sell if for more money). Though there are flats and rooms available for rent.

While not buying a home worth more than 2.5 times your income may work in the US if there are no properties in this price range the buyer has no choice but to pay more.

Also what does 100% credit terms mean (100% APR (annunal interest))?

Guys, I think you're missing the whole point of the original post.  Why bother to work hard if some liberal asshole is going to tax your money away and give it to illegal aliens, crack addicts, and bloated government agencies?  Is there any reason not to become a parasite and leech off the system like so many other people?

>>53
Firstly, the UK is in a much worse housing bubble than the USA.  Any viewpoint you're taking otherwise is just wrong.

Secondly, no one actually forces you to sign a mortgage for a hugely overpriced home.  There is no housing shortage in the UK.  If the price is too fucking high, you're financially obligated to RENT.  (If you have to rent into a smaller domicile, then that's a natural side effect of your stupid fucking housing bubble.)  Renting when owning costs are TOO HIGH can only save YOU the money you'll need to further capitalize your life.

AFTER ALL, generally the buyer of a property is a person who ALREADY has a place to live.  If the price is too fucking high, then DON'T MOVE.

As to what "100% credit" means, you must be joking.  Next, you're going to ask what "loan to value" means?  The overuse of credit to "buy" a home is what has led to the huge increases in prices.  People with sensible down payments couldn't compete with the fuckwits who showed up clutching mortgage papers from some fuckwit bank ... with any such mortgage being a blank check, they effectively drove up prices.  They are using 100% credit to buy that home!  People are basically renting the entire home price from a bank!

After Satan left the Garden of Eden, garlic arose in his left footprint, and onion in the right.

>>56
But they are so delicious and have anti-bacterial properties. How can they be evil?

>>57
a small onion fell on my head once

>>55

Redcream stop criticizing me over things you don't fully understand.

Firstly there is a shortage of affordable housing in the UK (especially in the South East); secondly there almost no market for renting (you cannot rent a house in the UK, you can only rent a flat or a room in a house); thirdly most first time buyer have to live with their parents because they can't afford to live anywhere else (unless they want to live with their parents until they're 30 they have to get a high priced mortgage in order to move out of their parent's home). Consequently there is almost nowhere to rent and telling me that I should rent property because it's possible to do this in the US will not change this.

Also I asked about '100% credit' because they DON'T have this expression in the UK, just like how they don't have the expression 'going Dutch' in the US.