Word

Word? Maximum wage? That's the answer?

First I'm oppposed to that on principle. Second, as if the lawyers and accountants wouldn't pass through such legislation like a sieve. How naive. And hypocritical. I mean, assuming this guy has a problem with oppression.

The problem with the economy is complex, that goes without saying. I don't know what can fix it in the short term. In the long term, the most effective thing to do would be to somehow return to a business culture where much of the leadership worked its way up from within the same industry. As opposed to the current paradigm of stuffed shirt MBAs moving straight from school into the corner office while anyone who ever put gloves boots or a helmet on to do work is almost literally relegated to a lower caste, permanently relegated to shitball status.

You get these entitled pricks in charge who have no empathy or even understanding of what it's like to "actually work hard". Hell they often have no idea how to do any job other than "manage people" which has really got to be just about the most automatic skill. I mean I suppose you can learn to manage people but leadership is not management. No wonder it's so easy for them to decide year after year to give themselves raises and bonuses while bringing in consultants to do lay-offs and completely dehumanizing time-motion studies, ruthlessly extracting every drop of proft from the very souls of the workers, etc...

wank wank wank

... and by the way, what I propose would have the same effect as some kind of inane "maximum wage" legislation. If you get people who have worked (in the sense that the guy in the video uses it, meaning "added value") in an industry to more often be in charge of such decisions, more often the decision will include giving a raise to workers which will increase the proportion of "live money" in circulation. In other words I get what he's saying but he seems perilously close to a well-meaning tyrant to me.

I had to look away to make it through this. Why can't anyone on YouTube read a prepared speech without having cuts every 2 second anymore?

Pinhead video

It's actually a style; a kinetic editing style that adds energy to the delivery.

Monologuing for 8 minutes can be a killer. It's very hard to keep up energy and proper deliver for that time. Watching a monologue for that long can be especially brutal. You've probably never seen an 8 minute monologue in any movie or television show you've ever seen.

Speaking engagingly, by oneself, for extended periods of time is something that radio talk show hosts are often adept at. Politicians occasionally are. Professional speakers usually are. Even actors (film, not so much stage) can have a hard time not breaking character or flubbing a line or losing energy in an 8 minute scene. Youtube posters are usually not professionals in these fields. They have day jobs and do this as a hobby. They try to make it as entertaining as they can for you & play down their weak points.

It's not that they're incapable of memorizing an 8 minute rant (though I'm sure some are), but it takes a special person, and many years of experience, to be able to be engaging for that long.

This editing style also lets the performer assume multiple roles much more easily. It's not the case here, but if you watch, say, Michael Swaim on Cracked TV or this Ze Frank video on Scrabble, you're understand what I mean.>> ^xxovercastxx:

I had to look away to make it through this. Why can't anyone on YouTube read a prepared speech without having cuts every 2 second anymore?

>> ^budzos:

Word? Maximum wage? That's the answer?
First I'm oppposed to that on principle. Second, as if the lawyers and accountants wouldn't pass through such legislation like a sieve. How naive. And hypocritical. I mean, assuming this guy has a problem with oppression.
The problem with the economy is complex, that goes without saying. I don't know what can fix it in the short term. In the long term, the most effective thing to do would be to somehow return to a business culture where much of the leadership worked its way up from within the same industry. As opposed to the current paradigm of stuffed shirt MBAs moving straight from school into the corner office while anyone who ever put gloves boots or a helmet on to do work is almost literally relegated to a lower caste, permanently relegated to shitball status.
You get these entitled pricks in charge who have no empathy or even understanding of what it's like to "actually work hard". Hell they often have no idea how to do any job other than "manage people" which has really got to be just about the most automatic skill. I mean I suppose you can learn to manage people but leadership is not management. No wonder it's so easy for them to decide year after year to give themselves raises and bonuses while bringing in consultants to do lay-offs and completely dehumanizing time-motion studies, ruthlessly extracting every drop of proft from the very souls of the workers, etc...

If our democracy has failed to the point where we call valid ideas to fix the system naive then I wonder what at all we'll be able to get done. We must take control or nobody else will.

I agree with your emotional sentiment, but I disagree with your approach. My feelings on this can be best summed up by Tom Smothers:

Dick: What's the matter?
Tom: I don't care.
Dick: Now, wait a minute, tom, what do you mean you don't care?
Tom: I just don't care, I don't like that song, and I just -- so I just don't care.
Dick: You don't care about anything?
Tom: I don't care.
Dick: Don't you care about the world situation?
Tom: I don't care.
Dick: You don't care about that? What about civil rights?
Tom: I don't care.
Dick: What about the high taxes?
Tom: I don't care.
Dick: What?! Well, tell me, what do you think is the greatest single problem in the united states today?
Tom: Apathy.

We still have a government that will take action in the face of a large public outcry; look at what is happening with the TSA right now. Let's try to use it as opposed to simply vilifying those who oppress us without concrete action.

I propose we demand a salary cap because it's currently out of control and the power gained by such excessive salaries is being used to direct policy to support a very small segment of the population. Let's discuss the point.

Emotional assessment? The only "emotional assessment" is me currently finding your use of that phrase to be condescending and inaccurate. I'm opposed, but not emotional at the idea of owning a company and having the government tell me I'm not allowed to pay myself any more than a certain multiple of what the janitor gets.

But it's with a cold calculated certainty that I call it naive. It would absolutely not work. As I said, the lawyers and accountants and other species of corporate remora would find countless ways around it.

@handmethekeysyou

I'm aware of all that you've said, but I felt that 2-seconds between cuts was excessive. Certainly he can remain engaging for at least 2-3 sentences? This feels like something MTV would produce.