So across all consumers and small businesses, Chase has 86 million customers. If the CEO distributed all his pay, everyone gets $0.14. That’s not going to solve anyone being poor, and not going to help you if you have shitty spending habits.
For all the shitty things banks do, knocking them for actually advocating someone good for once seems counter-productive.
I assume you read about 15% of the response before deciding to push your glasses up on your nose and “Um, akshually”.
It was about more than just CEO pay.
Add in the $12 billion, and everyone now gets $140. Still not going to help them.
Go after the banks for some actual shitty things they do. A money lender telling people to spend responsibly is the opposite of the things we should be going after them for.
Still not going to help them.
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I wouldn’t say no to $140 from Chase if they were my bank. That’s grocery money.
Hey dipshit, it’s called taxes and public services. That money can go into paying for free healthcare and education, the IRS to make sure all the other parasites pay their due(every dollar put into that organization leads to a positive return), and a host of other things that end up providing a huge gain for people. None of that is to mention that of the 86mil customers there are many who don’t need the extra money so we can push more down to the poorer of the bunch.
You’re very confident for someone who’s thought about this so little and has no real idea how any of it works. Your own math fails miserably when you acknowledge that that CEO is not the only rich person and a proper redistribution of wealth even in the way you mentioned would mean thousands of dollars a month for everyone.
I just looked it up because they make all of these things public as they should. The CEO of my credit union gets $688,676 a year and the credit union treats me a whole hell of a lot better than what I hear from Chase customers. You know what my overdraft protection costs? Nothing, because they just had me keep a small amount of money in my savings account to cover it.
How is it the bank’s fault if your balance is low? I don’t get what’s the point of this. Your balance is low because your spending matches or exceeds your income.
They’re covering for systemic political issues by blaming it on the individual, essentially covering for poverty wages and other problems related to income distribution. I don’t know why they do this, either. But that’s why this rubs many people the wrong way.
People don’t get into trouble because of avocado toast but depressed wages, soaring house prices, medical costs, etcetera. What the hell are people supposed to do if the minimum spending to survive is already too much for their meager income?
The hypocrisy. Plus a bit between the lines about the changing role of the banking sector in the economy over the last 40-50 years.
eat the food that’s already in the fridge
That is such a perfect crystalline out-of-touch rich-person take that it has to be a bait. Right? …Right?
Don’t your servants fill your fridge with tasty home cooked meals that never run out???
I know quite a couple of people making about 150k+/year and they live paycheck to paycheck. They spend money like it’s nothing and can’t save any money. This one person had to move back in with their parents after they lost their job after 10 years. They were making at least 150k/year for ten years and had no savings. They didn’t even have any debt. They just spent every dollar they made. There are a lot of people like that and I would imagine the tweet is referring to those personality types. Like I know this one guy that took an Uber just to go 2 blocks.
My old man was like this. It always felt awkward though because he made more money than a lot of my classmate’s parents combined but it didn’t show because he spent it so quickly. We rationalize it a lot by thinking about how he grew up in extreme poverty. That said, he stroked out when I was a teenager and there was nothing to fall back on afterwards.
Fuckingcapitalists
