Yes - people should carefully study a candidate’s platform and assess their track record to ensure they’re voting for the right person. Something that has never happened with a majority of voters ever.

Ask a different question. Now, his net worth and his actual cash and reasonably liquid assets are two different things. But would it be better for the economy if he took home less profit and didn’t donate to charity? Or paid his least skilled workers a better wage and provided them healthcare?

If you wanna be a dick about it, that’s cool. But you’re the one who trotted out “facts” without backing them up with actual data. Where are you getting transaction prices from?

Lol. Except my father in law has a Carrera GTS4 with PASM. I think sport chrono is standard. And he paid 130ish

Is a world where humans need to upgrade cell phones every 2-3 years to the tune of 800 bucks really sustainable? I get that people do it, but when you do the math, even for people earning decent money, in a household of 2 or 3, the numbers are stupid.

I haven’t driven one of these yet. I have an old 911, pre-radiator, and my father in law has a 991 GTS. I like his GTS better than his 997 4S, it just feels like a tighter package and it just looks and feels right to me. I like cars I can work on, so new Porsches are out of the question even after I let them…

In ten years when a big chunk of the market are in electric cars, and people with ICE cars are going to an indy because they’re tired of the runaround and below average service from the dealer, they’ll realize they should have built their service revenue by actually providing a competitive service.

First - I think the dealership model is way past its time and considering the average car sales experience there’s no soapbox you all can stand on. It’s a living, and ostensibly an honest one, but one that uses pretty shitty tactics in order to maximize profit on a sale. Sure, the customer can sod off to another…

I wonder if car dealers realize that when they write loans for 6+ years that means that there will be less people buying in 5 years? Or do they just assume they can keep writing longer and longer loans and the market will just keep rising?

I’m a Tesla fan, and not to be too snarky here, but wow that interior looks comically bad. Like a toy car.

Lol. See? Instead of actually discussing information go for the ad hominem.

Lol. That’s a great budget. One that ignores any of the average realities for American households. It’s a best case scenario from someone that has a reasonably privileged upbringing. And someone that ultimately had upward mobility. 650 with rent and utilities is a one bedroom rent in some of the cheapest metros in…

Eh. I think the correct point in all this is, who really cares and why does this matter? People harp about being true to the material but film adaptations are just that, adaptations, and frequently make changes. The race of a character matters because people are racist. Period. 

Most Americans are Pro Union now. Expect the percent of “pro” people to keep rising. 

Yes, except the census also gives the “household” an average size. It’s between 2 and 3. I’d have to check but I’m pretty sure those quintiles are also household quintiles, at a rate of 2.5ish.

That’s a really dumb example. What metropolitan area are you living in where a household of 2.58 people ruthlessly controls finances and builds wealth on 50k? What’s the take-home on 50k, $2700? I made that in 2001 and my rent was $400 a month because I shared a house, but that wasn’t a household, I was a single kid…

Sorry dude, do people not accrue wealth through earnings? Since you wrote out a long explanation, I’m pretty sure you caught on.

By implying that the 70% tax burden is too much, and referring back to the “good old days” you “pretty plainly” implied that it didn’t matter what size their slice was, nor do you make any comment on how much the top earns relative to the “good old days” in your first comment. At all.

You’re correct. I should have said that when you aggregate the means, in 1967 the top 5%’s income was 68% the aggregate of means of all 5 quintiles, including their own. In 2016 it is 90%. I should have left it at more than doubling the mean earnings - point being, if they are making more of the money, the 70% of the…

Do you all even look things up before you type? Since 1968 the average income of the top 5% of earners has more than doubled (117%) in ADJUSTED dollars. If you take actual dollars it’s a ton more. They were earning somewhere around 65% of wages, now it’s over 90%. In the same amount of time, the bottom 3 “fifths” of…