Well in fairness, if you hurt those industry’s with less travel, the people in those industries who end up out of jobs and with no money will die at greater numbers. They would be mostly outside the US though, so this administration doesn’t care about that. But at the same time, if they gut the programs in the US that are peoples saftey nets, maybe it will include Americans.
People may die, but CEO’s have feelings too! How would you feel if you only earn 200mljn instead of 210. I don’t get it why no one ever takes the side of big companies and always look at people suffering by these companies. Oh wait, no, that’s not true, most American citizens indeed voted in favor of big companies and CEO’s at the cost of the general public. Never mind then.
Oh no, I mean based on my current income. If I made 10m less than I make now, I’d make about -10m. My yearly income is about 54k, or 0.054m, so subtracting 10m would get me to -9.946m.
I was trying to make a joke about how much 10m is for the average person, yet it’s rather minor when you’re already making 200m.
In fact, I’d be very much happy to make just those 10m, I don’t even need the 200m, nor would I need it more than once. A one-off sum of 10m would be more than enough to solve a lot of my problems and still have plenty left to be ready for future preparations.
But 10m out of 210m is ~5%. In your case 10m is ~2000% so you can’t really compare it. If you do want to compare it, it’s like you would loose ~5% out of your yearly salary, so 2.7k out of 54k. The question is, would you prefer to trade in 5% of your income for human safety, or do you prefer people to die?
My point is that ridiculous difference. 10m is a lot of money, yet these people wouldn’t actually lose much because what they have left is still so obscenely much more.
Huh, I would’ve guessed that the big concern if crashes increase would be that more people would die.
Of course, how could I forget about profits! /j
Well in fairness, if you hurt those industry’s with less travel, the people in those industries who end up out of jobs and with no money will die at greater numbers. They would be mostly outside the US though, so this administration doesn’t care about that. But at the same time, if they gut the programs in the US that are peoples saftey nets, maybe it will include Americans.
People may die, but CEO’s have feelings too! How would you feel if you only earn 200mljn instead of 210. I don’t get it why no one ever takes the side of big companies and always look at people suffering by these companies. Oh wait, no, that’s not true, most American citizens indeed voted in favor of big companies and CEO’s at the cost of the general public. Never mind then.
Actually, losing 10m income would be bad. For me, at least, it would put me about 10m in debt.
If earning 200m puts you 10m in debt, you’re already 210m in debt right now? How did you manage to do that?
Oh no, I mean based on my current income. If I made 10m less than I make now, I’d make about -10m. My yearly income is about 54k, or 0.054m, so subtracting 10m would get me to -9.946m.
I was trying to make a joke about how much 10m is for the average person, yet it’s rather minor when you’re already making 200m.
In fact, I’d be very much happy to make just those 10m, I don’t even need the 200m, nor would I need it more than once. A one-off sum of 10m would be more than enough to solve a lot of my problems and still have plenty left to be ready for future preparations.
But 10m out of 210m is ~5%. In your case 10m is ~2000% so you can’t really compare it. If you do want to compare it, it’s like you would loose ~5% out of your yearly salary, so 2.7k out of 54k. The question is, would you prefer to trade in 5% of your income for human safety, or do you prefer people to die?
My point is that ridiculous difference. 10m is a lot of money, yet these people wouldn’t actually lose much because what they have left is still so obscenely much more.
Read that again…