15
DiscussionUpcycling / Clothing customization
Just wondering if any of yall do that. I haven't done it in a while but I'm about to paint a design on some jeans I got that have a stain, I'm gonna paint over the stain!
My favorite fabric paints are Jacquard, they stay very soft. (Except for Neopaque which is crunchy by nature!)
In my experience, once you get beyond a certain level of comfort, money, like power, corrupts, and a whole lot of money corrupts a whole lot.
agreed. Wealth doesn't come from some magical vacuum; these people didn't discover the secret money tree. Wealth comes from exploitation. period. There is no wealth without the exploitation of labor. It is based on the value extrapolated from human labor. It requires alienation and reification, which basically turns people into things and gives human qualities to things, making them (property) more important than human life. This is why taking just one Econ class makes students less empathetic to other human beings.
This seems true, and yet at the same time I struggle to understand how someone like JKR or Taylor Swift have gained their wealth through exploitation. Both have likely exploited impoverished women in factories with merchandising, but the majority of their income comes from selling their media. Taylor’s variants are a bit of an eye roll but not exploitative surely? Same with JKR’s Fantastic Beasts disaster?
Ah, the merchandise. All the Chinese factories making all the HP and TS merchandise. That is the rub here. We could get into intellectual property, or the way all the people who give them money make THEIR money to spend on these things. Nina Paley is good about intellectual property on her webpage.
I’d say they’re the exception that proves the rule. The proportion of the top 2% who are hardworking entertainers is still tiny.
It depends which Econ class. Econ is more than just finance and a proper course in microeconomics will cover market failures, i.e. cases where government intervention is essential for efficient outcomes.
Don’t get me wrong, a lot of sociopaths go into Econ. And often the way it’s taught does nothing to discourage them. But it’s not inherent in the study of economics.
I'm an expert in an econ-adjacent field, and used to guest lecture in various universities - students used to come up to me afterward and quietly explain that they had never been exposed to anything but old-style Chicago school free market economics in their classes and weren't even aware there were other ways to consider the subject.
I find anything that makes a man more powerful than he already is just by being a man is a huge turnoff. I don’t like muscles or money. Just more ways for him to harm me when/if he turns on me.
I would see it as a potential sign of narcissism and sociopathy so I was never interested in high income earners. It's a lot more important to me for a partner to be well adjusted and productive.
"Mom, I am a rich man." - Cher
/s as I'm not rich (especially not Cher-rich). But I've been lucky enough to create some financial security for myself. I do expect equity from a partner, but that can take many forms; it doesn't have to be in earnings/wealth.
I went from not caring at all (I stayed 10 years with a guy who was unemployed all along), to being very firm: the guy needs to earn enough to 1) carry his own weight, 2) be able to provide for the both of us if I get sick or need help and 3) have his own house (he doesn't need to actually own a house, just have the means to buy one/rent one on his own, because I'm not sharing my place).
Anything below that standard, to me, is a dealbreaker.
How much would that mean in monthly earnings ? In the place where I live, it would be a minimum of 3000 (3 thousands) dollars per month.
No plans to remarry whatsoever, but if I were still in the dating scene I would steer clear of wealthy men. The potential hassles and headaches (especially legal ones) are not worth the idea of being “set for life” i.m.h.o. Plus, wives of wealthy men (don’t know how this would work in same-sex marriages) often have to upkeep a certain “image” in order to be seen as “worthy” (ew) of those men - i.e. look a certain way, live in the “right” areas, drive the “right” car, etc. NO thank you!!
Highest two percent?
I am inclined to agree with everyone who stated that that'd be a negative attribute. You do not usually get there by being a good person. (Usually. J.K.R.'s husband is a lucky man.)
An income high enough to afford one, perhaps even multiple children would be nice (though I am aging out of that option rapidly, alas), but isn't really a condition. I look more for character than for money.
I would normally consider it a negative attribute but would be willing to get to know the person.
Glad to see the distribution.
Sometimes I think, in a weird horseshoe way, a very wealthy person and I might have some life experiences in common. Kind of like a couple of those Kimmy Schmidt plotlines. But, given how many rich people I know who are morally repugnant and see me as barely human, I know that's probably a pipe dream (but gosh, ain't it nice to dream).
Thinking about it some more, top 2% of where? Globally, that might not be as rich as I usually think.
I don't need someone rich but financial security, stability and literacy is a must. I won't be with someone who could ruin my life because of poor choices.
Other: I value an attitude and approach to money that matches my own. He could be in the top 2% of earners and be spending all of it on garbage; I wouldn't be interested. I have zero interest in spending all my money and watching someone I'm in an intimate relationship with do that would stress me out. After all, he would start coming to me, right? I don't want to support or take part in the lifestyle habits of a 2%er. How much he's earning only matters if it's so low that he needs me to support him, a hard no to that as well.
For those who said very important: heh, good luck with that. My actual radical feminist sisters are rolling in their grave.
I'm very wary of women who value wealth in men, because their distaste for lower class people rarely ever stops at men.
devil's advocate - the more obnoxious and undesirable he is, the more $$$$$ he has to have to compensate a woman to be with him. Ofc this is a transactional setup, no love matter.
I believe ive read that the happiest marriages are the ones where the woman earns more. Makes sense they know if they dont act right they'll lose everything and she has little to no risk from leaving.
I don't like rich people and do not believe it's possible to be among the top wothout exploiting others. So I'd say that for me it's very important that my partner is not among filthy rich.
I guess I'm not sure how much the top 2% make?
Reasonably high income is preferred, where reasonably high is >$100k annually. This is less than I make but standard of living and financial goals could be maintained with some adjustments. On par with my earnings would be preferable.
Wealth is sort of important, but good financial habits and compatible values and goals are much more important. Wealth and income can go up in smoke with poor financial habits.
I don’t know who makes that much money besides C suite corporate types. Maybe some successful doctors and big law lawyers.
I'd consider it a negative attribute. I have no interest in being with someone who would want a job that puts him in that category.
I agree about the jobs, but there are always people who inherited wealth that puts them in the top 2% of net worth, not income. I don’t know that my view of them is much different though.
That's true. You can't choose your parents. I guess it would depend on his attitude towards wealth. If he lived modestly and donated most of his fortune to good causes, I would consider him as a potential partner.
My father worked for a research doctor that was old money. For a while they owned the biggest estate in Los Angeles. They had generational money. They made their kids work and when one of them brought home his finance from an Ivy League college she was blown away of how much money they had, she thought the guy was just middle class. The whole family was great and not snobs at all. So you want to marry old money if you marry rich. They believe in noblesse oblige. Old wealth is a lot different from new money. New money has to step all over everybody to get to the top.
The trouble is when your noblesse oblige tips you all the way back into the struggling middle class, like it did in my family. But hey, at least we have a street named after one of our ancestors in the city where I was born.
Old money tends to dwindle after too many generations. The family I spoke about had 5 kids now, all in their seventies, and a lot of grandkids.
Yeah, it’s possible to do good things with inherited wealth and stay down to earth.
Nobody gets to the top 2% by being a lovely person. Any exceptions are vanishingly few.
I think we're seriously overestimating what qualifies as top 2% of earners. It isn't that high. I would guess 400k averaged across the US? Less in certain states (and I'm not qualified to speak on other countries).
Certainly not JKR level, as I see some commenters quoting. Most of the money is consolidated in the < 1%.
Yeah, stratification is extreme all the way up. Someone else was saying in the US the top 2% of incomes is $300k and up.
Wait, does that mean that the super rich are an even tinier number of people?
That's crazy.
(Though 300k a year still is more than anyone really needs.)