The Glade 4.0

Yeah, I'm completely with Talya on this. The few things I like enough to enjoy doing them for 1/3 of my waking life are not generally profit-generating activities, and hence not things anyone is going to pay me to do. If I could "retire" from income-generating work now and live off investments, I'd be more than happy to do so. Alternatively, getting paid to sit in a rubber room all day would be fine too, as long as I was free to spend that time reading, surfing, writing, gaming, etc., and the person paying me was happy to do so, not begrudgingly forced into it.

Additionally, from my perspective the fact that I don't have to worry about the cost/benefit of my time while doing "fun" things is part of what makes them fun. Sure there are probably some things that I enjoy doing that I could make a living at, but I'd be taking a HUGE pay cut and would like tarnish the fun that I have with those things.

Yeah, ok. Fair enough.

But... F that. If I'm not enjoying what I'm doing, and being perpetually challenged, I get bored and move on.

I cannot stand being bored or disintrested.

I'd find something to do all day for 80k a year. I wouldn't get bored, and I wouldn't be bothered by having no "accomplishments." Especially given that I could be retired by 52 after 30 years of work, gaining a big fat check for being retired and doing nothing.

Make all your accomplishments after you're 52 and you win Arathain's argument and Talya's.

Arathain -- you're assuming the retiring at 52 is off their own money. It's a pension.

Pensions are their own money. It may or may not have been prudent for companies/governments to sign contracts for such generous pensions, but the fact is they did, and the employees/retirees now have a contractual property right to those pension benefits that's every bit as legitimate and binding as any other contractual property right.

Pensions are their own money. It may or may not have been prudent for companies/governments to sign contracts for such generous pensions, but the fact is they did, and the employees/retirees now have a contractual property right to those pension benefits that's every bit as legitimate and binding as any other contractual property right.

So conversely, Congress had no right to even suggest retroactively taxing the bonuses/golden parachutes of executives of bailed out companies, nor does Obama have a leg to stand on to appoint a "Pay Czar", and it's the height of lol-ness to think that Congress wants to regulate pay and compensation for those who work on Wall Street and other sectors.

So conversely, Congress had no right to even suggest retroactively taxing the bonuses/golden parachutes of executives of bailed out companies, nor does Obama have a leg to stand on to appoint a "Pay Czar", and it's the height of lol-ness to think that Congress wants to regulate pay and compensation for those who work on Wall Street and other sectors.

Arathain -- you're assuming the retiring at 52 is off their own money. It's a pension.

Oooh. I like that reasoning, Xeq -- can we extend it to Social Security reform and our bankrupt nation?

The bailout was a creation of a war chest to get Dems elected. Having a tough election in your district? We will TARP you back into office by giving you pet projects!

You are aware that Bush signed TARP, right?

Also, the US is bankrupt? Really? If the US is bankrupt with a debt load of 70% of GDP, then what is Japan with a debt load of 200% of GDP? By this logic the vast majority of the countries in the world are bankrupt.

Yes they are.

I have a debt load of approximately 200% of my GDP. I'm not anywhere close to bankrupt.

You aren't seriously comparing national debt to a personal mortgage or loan, are you?