You will never own a house

also true.
One of my uncle's was bragging about how he made a million in a year.
Now he's 70, not retired, works a shit job, and lives in a shitty apartment.
Where did that million go? How the fuck did you not invest a million properly?

But I do own a house. I own three.

It's automaton you dipshits. The amount of value average worker can produce has gone up, but the actual need for labor has gone down, so there's always people lined up to take manufacturing jobs. This problem will still exist no matter how many brown people your deport and kill. A race war would only accelerate the decline of industrial society further.

so why don't we guillotine the owners of the robot factories and use the robots to work for us?

most boomers are like 25-30

not if it's a racewar against blacks then you're just cleaning up something that's already declining society.

That's what Yang will do

>automation started in the 70's

Attached: 220.jpg (400x506, 36K)

It's due to women entering the workforce

Your idiocy is to blame. You don't need money to live. Just drop out and live a modest life off the land. Squat if you have to. Have as many kids as possible and keep under the radar. Mission accomplished.

Sorry, but youre fucking retarded, dude

It's much more accurate to say that automation started in the late 1800s but reached fever pitch in the seventies.

Attached: 1223836158083.jpg (1000x826, 70K)

Fucking computers. I wish they were never developed.

>Jews use capitalism to horde the wealth for themselves
>While you work 45 hours a week
>Consuming products the Jews got some Chinese/Africans to make for you for a fraction of what it'd cost if you made it
>Your job is getting automated anyway
>The Jew's income is passive and based entirely off capital investments
CAPITALISM IS THE BEST FORCE IT HAS RAISED PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY IF YOU HATE IT YOU'RE A DUMB COMMIE KEK HAIL TRUMP HAIL OUR PEOPLE HAIL VICTORY

Attached: dumpf.png (208x314, 80K)

>45 hours a week
That would feel like a vacation. Why the fuck do we need to work so much?>! ReeeeeEEEEeeE

Attached: 1537311991496.jpg (1732x1200, 1.48M)

you should have gotten into a tech job. most of my friends own 5 houses and never go into the office. if the jews are the reason that i learned how to program and make 180k a year before stocks and bonuses, then the jews are my greatest ally. what the fuck did lazy chinese kids like you do for me?

no, nigger. they're in their 50's-70's now.
they lived a life of wanton excess. now that the """trickle-down""" meme has failed and no one can afford a house, they're scapegoating niggers

shut the fuck up boomer nigger. i bet you're so old you remember 9/11

>don't worry about the billions stored in my tax shelter in the cayman islands. i made that money lawfully!
>pay no attention to the trillions invested in the financial derivatives and currency markets overseas!
>because immigrants are pouring across the border and costing us MILLIONS!!!!! in social services and health care!

>being a 25 year old Boomer piece of trash that took all the jobs

Computers are just tools. Evil people use tools for evil, and good people use tools for good. What the top .1% of economic takers don't want you to realize is that if the public organized a mass protest in Washington, D.C. that didn't end until all of the crooked politicians leave office, things would actually change.

Yeah, in the past couple of years, a bunch of idiots started using the word "boomer" to refer to people in their 20s.

This, of course, is now causing tremendous confusion, because for the past 7 decades, the word "boomer" was used exclusively to refer to people born from the late 1940s through the 1950s.

All you can do anymore is just accept the clusterfuck of confusion surrounding the word "boomer", and realize that everybody is going to be misusing and/or misinterpreting that word from now on.

This clusterfuck hasn't quite hit the mainstream media yet -- they still use the word "boomer" only for people in their 60s/70s. But no doubt the clusterfuck will eventually seep everywhere within a few years, and everyone will finally have to give up using the word because of the endless confusion it will cause.

>tfw I'll live to see the last boomer die
>tfw I'll be alive to see CNN reporting on GWB and Dongo Trump dying of heart attacks

Attached: feelsgoodman.jpg (659x609, 33K)

>Dongo Trump dying of heart attacks

I want him to live a long long time. I want him to be continually reminded for years and years that he was considered by historians as one of the very worst presidents in US history.

Recently there was a poll done of Republican-leaning history professors, and Donny came in as the 5th-worst president of all time. (Obviously, among the Democratic-leaning history professors, he ranked 1st for worst president.) Both groups ranked Obama as an above-average president, which will torture Donny until the day he dies. I want that torture to last as long as possible.

That would be cool too. I'm in my mid-20s so I can wait for a while for the kino.

He's arguably the best president.
There are many boomers in their 20s

>He's arguably the best president.

Attached: a33.png (558x614, 45K)

>Recently there was a poll done of Republican-leaning history professors
The guy become President of the United States, but some random (if real) (((republican))) professor say he's not good.

College professors are even worse at attention whoring than teenage girls. It's not surprising some tenured retard made a "TOP 10 PRESIDENTS YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE ARE THE WORST. NUMBER 3 WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!"

Those who suck dick, teach. Everyone knows that in the states at least.

Your logic is that since he became president he's good? What?

REEEEEE
GTFO NORMIEE

Attached: laughter.png (643x537, 231K)

nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

Seems pretty accurate to me

>Objective achievement vs retarded opinion, both based on polls
>hmm which one is more valid

So you think being elected president means you can't be bad at being president...?

what combined with wide spread of the BC pill so women could stay in those sectors and not be knocked up and instant house mother. Why their inclusion fuck things up was how women tend to be more agreeable (ie pushovers) and their lack of experience in said work force.

Attached: Life is Strange.png (467x447, 412K)

>stack up
>poll results vary over time
>rating someone's presidency in the middle of his presidency

YOU REALLY WON'T BELIEVE WHO CAME IN AT NUMBER 18! BUY OUR T-SHIRT!

its because of automation

Well it's not like Trump is going to get any better. He'll never get the House back so he won't be able to pass any legislation, even if re-elected he'll be a lame duck.

Disregarding that, I don't see how it isn't interesting to see how perception of past and current presidents varies over time.

You mean condoms. but mexicans still have lots of kids so you're wrong.

>He's arguably the best president.
Great. So go argue it. Go to any respected university's history department, ask to schedule a seminar on the ranking of the US presidents, and explain to the audience exactly why Trump is better than all the rest.

Why not put your opinions to a real test, rather than just typing them into a website filled mostly with under-25 slackers?

>History department
>Still in office
colleges really become open sewers, why do a history department is trying to do politics instead of studding history?

case is the US realising the soviet union wasn't really a threat to capitalism, just a roadblock

>completely meaningless data outside of a circle jerk with genuine losers
>interesting
1. You should have your own perceptions instead of relying on a survey. How fucking slow would you have to be to go straight to appeal-to-authority over the subjective qualities of a president? Let alone the fact that history professors are literally no greater authority on that than a walmart employee.

2. Even if you would suggest that presidents exist in a vacuum with no influence from society or events or luck, each president must necessarily be the "best" president for his time. Because you have literally no one else to compare to. Besides, all public opinion on presidents is based on their charisma.

3. It would be incredibly sad for you if you studied political science and had an IQ higher than 60. Spending that time on stocks or studying companies who have real power in the world would result in a much more "interesting" life.

Why do liberals always to try derail every single politic thread to "it's Trump fault"?
This is about how wages got shittier since 1970, while no president (Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush,...) did nothing about it. Not about drumofy being racist and dumb.

For people wondering what happened in the mid 70s there were a number of supreme Court cases that lifted campaign donation limits and campaign finance laws were loosened as well as corporations being ruled as people. This lead to wages stagnating and politicians no longer doing anything to serve the common good of the average worker

Ok, so a law that never exist is the cause of wages drops because your ideology need it to make any sense?

>real test
>seminar with history students on 200 PRESIDENTS THAT NEARLY BROKE THE INTERNET!
I would get a 100/100 on that test.

>colleges really become open sewers, why do a history department is trying to do politics instead of studding history?

What does studying Victorian economics or evaluating the archeological evidence for Troy have to do with politics? Social scientists continue to uncover more and more problems in the right-wing worldview and you just hate that, so you're willing to throw an entire and vital field of study under the bus for short-sighted political gain. Which makes you exactly the kind of thing that you're so outraged about.

What are you talking about? Corporate donations to politicians were ruled as being protected under the first amendment because corporations were deemed to have first amendment rights when they were declared to be people. Politicians then went purely to millionaires, billionaires and corporations for campaign donations and now serve them almost exclusively. This isn't just conjecture, you can look at voting records of politicians to see where their loyalty is.

>a law that never exist

Are you saying you don't believe in changes to campaign finance laws?

What ratting the current president hast to do with history? They should try to study history instead of making "Top 10 worse presidents list, the 5 will surprise you"

Can you name a single recent contribution a social science department made? Serious, besides forming militants to support progressive ideology.

While it's seemingly important to measure how much white privilege and racism is destroying society, those Social Scientists (not real scientists, because surveys are not science) never provide a solution and there is no industry or field of study for that solution so it's a waste of time. It's even less valuable to society than art appraisal or planting roses.

>Muh minor law is the cause of all bad in US
Please, it's ok to believe this SJW fairy tale when you're 15, but you should know better

There were absolutely no restrictions on campaign donations, of corporations or anyone else, anywhere in the United States before 1972.

So one major problem with your theory is that the presence of campaign finance laws negatively correlates with your the part of your graph that you're bent out of shape about.

>What ratting the current president hast to do with history? They should try to study history instead of making "Top 10 worse presidents list, the 5 will surprise you"

The whole point of studying history is to learn lessons that can contribute to a better feature. If the guys that study Nero say that this guy is like Nero, that's not a good sign. Presidential rankings are useful because they help us evaluate what strategies are working and which aren't. This would be important if we wanted politicians to actually make things better instead of justing beating the other team.

>Can you name a single recent contribution a social science department made? Serious, besides forming militants to support progressive ideology.

Do you assume that businesses make their policies based on conjecture and tradition? They hire social scientists to help craft the "corporate cultures" that rule the lives of most people in the first world. That's hugely important. Similarly, psychology and sociology are incorporated into the design of every product we use on a daily basis. Market, basically applied sociology, is one of the most profitable investments a business can make.

You're clearly an uneducated prole.

>There were absolutely no restrictions on campaign donations, of corporations or anyone else, anywhere in the United States before 1972.

Shhhhhh you're expecting a leftist to know something about history. Don't be silly.

>something happened
is this bait? it is called automation. never heard of it?

If it's such a minor detail, why not just fix it and see what happens?

See, his argument is basically:
>If things used to be good and are bad, it's because [liberal thing] was removed
>If things used to be bad and are good, it's because [liberal things] was introduced
If he has to lie about the "restrictions on campaign donations" he want today existing in the past, it's no problem

no, it started last year.
stupid zoomer

How fucking stupid can you be? What does social justice warriors have to do with incentive structures?
>Hurr durr only SJW faggots think that paying someone to do something would make them do it
>Fucking stupid libtards

Bullshit anti corruption laws date back to the 19th century

I mean, you guys make exactly the same kind of arguments about immigration, and it's just as much conjecture as the campaign finance laws. Again, if it's not important, there should be nothing lost in fixing it.

>reddit space
>huge excuse we a "TOP 10 PRESIDENTS YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE ARE THE WORST. NUMBER 3 WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!" is important so society
>Defending corporate culture as something good
You have to go back, boy

Because there was never some sort of "restrictions on campaign donations", how can we fix a problem you just invented?

>They hire social scientists to help craft the "corporate cultures" that rule the lives of most people in the first world

No, they hire "social scientists" to attempt to insulate themselves from tortious liability under the Civil Rights Act of 1963 (as expanded by subsequent case law) and under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Repeal those two acts, and I guarantee you that just about every social scientist grifter out there running "training seminars" and writing policy guidelines for a business in the private sector will be out of a job by the end of the week.

>I'm a piece of shit incapable, so every one else is
Thanks for admitting your are a lier, and pretend everyone else is

Just found this. The first campaign finance laws date back to the late 1800s
infoplease.com/us/campaign-finance-reform-history-and-timeline

I see that actually responding to my argument was too hard for you. And I'm not defending corporate culture, I'm pointing out that billions of dollars ride on the social sciences, so dismissing them is dangerously naive. You're clearly unable to do more than articulate you knee-jerk disgust so there's no point in dealing with you.

>You have to go back, boy

Make me.

>Because there was never some sort of "restrictions on campaign donations", how can we fix a problem you just invented?

Make it so that all campaigns are financed by the state, just like vote collection.

Do you even speak English? I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say.

>be me
>go to a shit college
>learn propaganda instead of studying
>came to Jow Forums an see a thread about wages in 70's
>only use reddit spacing
>start talking shit about trump
>post many times saying political scientists know better
>people should trust whatever they say
>see someone talking about how things used to be better
>"of course it's because some liberal law that was remover"
>lie about some law that never existed
>talk some more about how people must accept i'm right
>all militants in college agree with me, and they know better
>use grammar to offend someone, if their english is not pertest, they must be wrong

You live must suck

Conservatism is a mental illness. Originally.

>Bullshit anti corruption laws date back to the 19th century

The first limits on donations to political candidates were put in place by the Federal Election Campaign Act, passed in 1971 and taking effect in 1972.

Prior to that, national banks were prohibited from funding candidates as a condition of their federal charters, and some state parties faced limits on how much they could spend to support a candidate, but -no- limits, zero, existed on how much an individual or groups of individuals could contribute to a political campaign.

Frankly, a *strong* case could be made that in the days of unlimited contributions candidates were actually more leftist - because a relatively small number of highly committed individuals could fund highly ideological campaigns. FDR and Truman were elected under that system.

>i'm cannot understand you, you must be very dumb

>Let's approve some law my ideology support, to fix a problem only my ideology can see
Why'd push your agenda to fix a problem you invented

>he hasn't searched homes under $30k on the internet
>he doesn't think people can save that up in a few years even with out a line of jew credit

Read them.

The set of things they attempted to prohibit was extremely narrow, and the persons viewed as covered were narrowly construed as well.

If I wanted to support a candidate for President from 1864 to 1968, there were absolutely no restrictions on how much I could contribute to their campaign, or how much I could independently spend in support of their campaign. I didn't have to file any paperwork disclosing or documenting my donations or my expenditures, either.

>social sciences

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>Social "science".

How are those reproducability studies going, social "scientist"?

just curious, are you french by chance?

>1907
>The Tillman Act prohibits corporations and national banks from contributing money directly to presidential or congressional campaigns
1910
>The Federal Corrupt Practices Act (also called the Publicity Act) requires House candidates to disclose campaign spending and the source of all campaign contributions.
1911
>The Federal Corrupt Practices Act is amended and requires that Senate candidates also adhere to the disclosure rules set forth in the law
What kicked off "the roaring twenties"?
1921
>In Newberry v. United States, the Supreme Court rules that the Federal Corrupt Practices Act is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to regulate political parties or federal primary elections
Then in 1925 a bandaid the resembled Swiss cheese was placed on that
>1925

Congress amends the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. New provisions of the law include: a ban any corporation contribution to a federal campaign, candidates must disclose the source of contributions greater than $50, patronage is prohibited, and Senate candidates can spend $.03 for each voter based on numbers from the previous election and cannot spend more than $25,000. Same rule applies to House candidates but they cannot spend more than $5,000. The law serves as the primary source of guidelines for campaign finance until 1971, but its provisions are easily skirted. In fact, President Lyndon Johnson declares it "more loophole than law."

I want corporations to not be able to bribe politicians plz

>that was remover
>pertest
>Your live must suck

Jow Forumstards make it too easy.

Attached: istockphoto-504880486-612x612.jpg (612x437, 44K)

Something tells me you got mad user. why you follow an ideology that teach anger and rage?

And how did that work out? The stock market crash, the great depression and the great recession all came from periods with weak campaign finance laws, which I would certainly argue lead to the deregulation and tax cuts that caused them to happen. A strongly regulated wall street can't crash the economy without repercussions, but they somehow managed to twice, even being bailed out after it. How do you think that happened?

Obama got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches he gave on wall street after he got out of office

>why you follow

I believe in you user. One day you'll be able to write a sentence.

Attached: 200251.jpg (800x563, 398K)

Obama is a nigger, of course he's corrupt

But what's the deal with this crazy theory? If you approve a law in 1971 and you have a crisis in 2008, or you approve a law in 1912 and have a crisis in 1929, there's clearly no relation.

I worked min wage for 10 years saving up as much as I could and now own a house. I'm 29 btw.

That'd be a fun idea only that Trump doesn't have an inch of self-awareness or shame so he won't be fazed.

>le liberal that cannot hold an argument (because he's too smart, of course)

Well done user, now work more 50 years and maybe you can rest... corporate profits aren't free.

Attached: 1543686439463.jpg (1312x1410, 355K)

I was away for an hour playing Risk of Rain 2 before I came back and saw the guy who can't spell. Not even sure what the argument is about right now but damn that guy doesn't know English.

>here is a shit explanation on why I cannot hold an argument, but I'm very smart
Whatever dude, no one expect you to say anything decent.

How is it a conspiracy?
>Create incentive structures that incentivizes corruption
>Corruption takes holds
>Regulations get weakened
>Income inequality skyrockets
>Crash occurs
These things take time to happen. In the case of the roaring twenties it took 8 years. Clinton got rid of the regulations on wall street banks in the 90s, I think that one was 20 years and I don't remember the exact circumstances surrounding the stock market crash on the early 1900s off the top of my head. The graph in op's picture shows what happened when the campaign finance laws were all but scrapped in the mid 70s

Shit argument? I dunno man, Risk of Rain 2 is pretty fun.

From the Wikipedia article on the Tillman Act:

The language of the Act provided for penalties but no actual enforcement method; no Federal Election Committee or similar body yet existed to enforce the provisions. There were no existing disclosure requirements for candidates accepting contributions, and so there was no effective way to enforce the new law. The Act applied to general elections, but not primary elections. In the South, the grip of the Democratic Party was absolute, and so the primary election was the most important contested race. Further, a corporation could circumvent the law by directing its officers or directors to make personal contributions to a candidate, which were not prohibited, and then simply give them bonuses at year end to effectively reimburse them for those contributions.

From the Wikipedia article on the Federal Corrupt Practices Act:

However, the stronger version failed to provide for adequate regulation of campaign finance. The law provided for no regulatory authority to establish the manner of reporting or its disclosure to the public, and it set no penalties for failure to comply. The law did not regulate total contributions, which encouraged parties and donors to set up multiple committees and make multiple donations, all under $100, to evade the law's limits. Enforcement was left up to Congress, which rarely acted.

So once again, between 1864 and 1968 I could donate as much as I wanted to any federal candidate and independently spend as much as I wanted on any federal candidate.