burnshimself t1_jd91489 wrote

Yea, we absolutely have to be vigilant about that and antisemitism is a real problem - but like normally that manifests in spray painting synagogues or throwing rocks at kosher stores. Actions that are more damaging and imply some level of premeditation (eg getting spray paint).

I’m just speculating here, but this smells like kids doing something stupid on a dare. A police station is a weird place to target antisemitic vandalism. You can barely see this so in terms of impact it’s pretty low (it is probably already gone with a quick hose down of the sidewalk). And it looks like they just grabbed a paver and carved it into the sidewalk so likely didn’t bring any tools of their own to do this. Just doesn’t check out as something an actual antisemite would do.


burnshimself t1_jcamdu1 wrote

Lol on what authority do you think this man was a millionaire? Other than owning a home in park slope - which I gather they’ve owned for decades and bought when real estate in park slope was super cheap and the area was not its present yuppie playground - I see no signs of material wealth. He went on scholarship to school - not something that a wealthy family would have been offered and concrete evidence of his family’s income being well below what you’re representing.

He was a lawyer in the music industry - which he did for about 10 years until leaving in 2001. That’s a fine living, but not upper class. He probably was a salaried employee and not even a partner-level lawyer. He didn’t have his own firm. And big big money didn’t show up in hip hop until after he left the industry. So I don’t see his legal career as being something that would have hugely enriched him.

And the blog / podcast job almost certainly didn’t make him rich. Only very recently (last 5 years) have any podcasters started making real big money. And that’s only the biggest names. This guy ran a middling niche podcast that could never pay him any kind of big money. Same for blogging - journalism is notoriously not lucrative.

Living at home with your parents is the opposite of privilege. Privilege is having your parents pay for you to have your own apartment. Millions of Americans live at home into their 20s, usually because they can’t afford to move out. How is being too poor to move out of your parents house privilege? Or are we just saying anyone who doesn’t have two dead, destitute, homeless crack addicts parents is privileged?

So again I’ll ask where is the privilege?


burnshimself t1_jcakxf9 wrote

Why do you hate this man so much? We’re going to crucify him for making $150?

He comes from a supportive family, sure, but he went to school on scholarship and doesn’t seem like he is a trust fund baby at all. Tons of people live at home with their parents after college and I’d argue there the opposite of privilege - privilege is mom and dad paying for you to have your own apartment. And he’s used that opportunity, his education and that support to be an activist working to better his community - a noble pursuit.

There are hundreds of thousands more egregious instances of nepotism and more insulting income levels, I see no point in picking on this guy.


burnshimself t1_jcajkog wrote

Yea I’m gonna have to disagree with you chief.

He went to private school on scholarship. He likely tested in to it and has to apply to earn his spot. Are we saying the children of lower income families who go to a good school are privileged now? We’re shaming people for getting a good education? Feels like you’re completely commandeering this language in a disingenuous and performative attempt to put this guy down.

As for his family legacy - musicians, especially black musicians, were pretty much broke unless they were a headliner act. Session musicians like his grandfather were middle income at best. Even headline acts in those days had record companies cheat them out of their money. I wouldn’t call that history privilege. And if it is then I guess we’re all privileged unless we came from a long line of homelessness, in which case privilege just has no meaning anymore.


burnshimself t1_j5nink7 wrote

I mean people are welcome to be upset about how much top public company execs are paid. The data should simply be presented as such and clearly labeled. This is done to find the most extreme possible disparity without adequately highlighting the limitations of the data, all with the sole goal of outraging people rather than informing them. It’s incredibly misleading and unethical in my view.


burnshimself t1_j5mpzpu wrote

It’s the CEOs of the top 350 companies only, so basically CEOs of $100+ billion companies only. It’s not even the entire S&P500. Huge sample bias - obviously people running a $100 billion company are going to be high comped, and they are a highly highly successful group.

This data basically doesn’t apply to the standard small business or even a normal mid-to-large enterprise


burnshimself t1_j5mpl0f wrote

There is a fuck ton of sample bias here. Clearly the data was chosen to draw the desired conclusion.

First, they’re just picking the salaries of the 350 largest companies’ CEOs. So the CEO sample size is 350, which lacks statistical significance / rigor. Not only that, you’re picking probably 350 of the ~1,000 highest salaried most successful people in America. I don’t think that is a fair representation of overall CEO pay. It would be like looking at the salaries of NBA all-stars and claiming amateur basketball players are overpaid. There’s been a ton of corporate consolidation in the last 40 years, which means the largest 350 firms have gotten meaningfully larger. Also picking the top-350 means you’re only seeing CEOs who are tremendously successful, so likely to make more money on merit. Lastly a lot of CEO comp is options in company stock, which are worth more when the company performs well (as the top-350 would be expected to do) and benefit generally from mass stock market appreciation over the last 50 years.


burnshimself t1_j0x3ng3 wrote

The administrators commit fraud right out in the open with how ridiculously overpaid they are. Why would they worry about skimming off the top when their entire existence is piggybacking on the efforts of actual educators and professors at the expense of students? It’s all the same