Mark Rabin, a former software engineer, recalled one manager saying at an all-hands meeting that Boeing didn’t need senior engineers because its products were mature.
www.industryweek.com
Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers
It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.
The Max softwareーplagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flawーwas developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.
Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospaceーnotably India.
Boeing has had crashes, doors fly off planes and they use H1-B visas paying them $9 an hour. I would like Vivek and Elon to address this but they won't.
I'm framing it that way because it is that way. There is no such thing as an average person. I'm sure the numbers are worse after $100m. Are you arguing that not only should billionaires not have so much wealth but entertainers and athletes and owners of smaller companies shouldn't have so much wealth either?
The "average" person in that case was the rest of the sample, but no sir - I'm rather suggesting that they need less help than the "average person" does today.
If we do a one time transfer of wealth from all the US billionaires for example that would equal about $18,000 a person for every person in the USA. Keep in mind you would get that one time and probably never again, because who would even want to work as a CEO of a company only to be stripped of all their wealth a few years later? Probably noone. Now according to some wealth statistics about 6% of Americans are millionaires and those hold assets of around $27 trillion. When you divide that wealth up amongst all Americans you get about another $80,000 per person, one time.
Respectfully, I feel like the one-time transfer of wealth argument is a bit disingenuous though because that completely negates the downstream effect of having wealth.
Meaning, if millionaires and billionaires were spending their entire net worth in the economy on goods, etc, I don't know that it would be detrimental. The problem is that the way the system is designed, having money often creates more money, therefore, increasing the disparity and worsening conditions for those at the bottom of the rat race. So, it's not just the trillions they have hoarded today, but the ability to use those trillions to grow exponentially at a rate detrimental to the rest of society. And while the economy is not a zero-sum game imo, it is a "relative-sum" game imo where the more wealth created does end up affecting the lower class via inflation, influence, etc.
-----
Now to be fair to your side, net worth obv isn't liquid cash so we obviously can't just force rich people (or often even incentivize them) to "spend" that and, more importantly, their net worth is often variable due to stock price etc. So, I think your natural follow up question makes sense.
I don't inherently think there should be an artificial cap on personal wealth, but for sure I think the system should be gamed to slow them down exponentially. In terms of companies/stock there is probably a moral question of whether someone should be able to wield such a large power of a business that is so economically important, but I haven't thought enough about it to really have an opinion tbh. On initial thought, if we allow breaking up monopolies on business, I'm not sure I see breaking up ownership of conglomerates or huge companies as much different, even if it ends up going to family members or whatever.
It's not about "taking their money" but rather about systemically increasing the difficulty for rich people to extend their lead and decreasing the difficulty for poor people to get by.
Keep in mind, not many will want to be an professional entertainer or professional athlete or small company owner in the USA anymore because something about being stripped of all or most of your wealth has that effect on the general psyche of a population.
Secondly what is the value of forming all these opinions? Wasn't the whole point of forming a market system and having things be dictated by supply and demand so that we don't rely on someone opinion of how much any of us "should" be paid? If people are so envious of all these billionaires then why haven't they jumped through all the hoops necessary to become billionaires themselves? If they aren't willing to jump through those hoops but just want to get paid more in their current position, that is just pure laziness.
I don't think I agree that the reason most people don't have money or are struggling to get by is because they are lazy. I also think it's the other side that is the one dictating what someone "should" be paid. Because if workers are at a shortage, they should be paid more.
But after being convinced over the last 2 years that immigration was a legitimate problem, I'm now being told the plan is to introduce legislation to open up the borders to allow extra workers because the game isn't fair enough for billionaires? THAT's putting the finger on the scale imo.
The "average" person in that case was the rest of the sample, but no sir - I'm rather suggesting that they need less help than the "average person" does today.
Respectfully, I feel like the one-time transfer of wealth argument is a bit disingenuous though because that completely negates the downstream effect of having wealth.
Meaning, if millionaires and billionaires were spending their entire net worth in the economy on goods, etc, I don't know that it would be detrimental. The problem is that the way the system is designed, having money often creates more money, therefore, increasing the disparity and worsening conditions for those at the bottom of the rat race. So, it's not just the trillions they have hoarded today, but the ability to use those trillions to grow exponentially at a rate detrimental to the rest of society. And while the economy is not a zero-sum game imo, it is a "relative-sum" game imo where the more wealth created does end up affecting the lower class via inflation, influence, etc.
-----
Now to be fair to your side, net worth obv isn't liquid cash so we obviously can't just force rich people (or often even incentivize them) to "spend" that and, more importantly, their net worth is often variable due to stock price etc. So, I think your natural follow up question makes sense.
I don't inherently think there should be an artificial cap on personal wealth, but for sure I think the system should be gamed to slow them down exponentially. In terms of companies/stock there is probably a moral question of whether someone should be able to wield such a large power of a business that is so economically important, but I haven't thought enough about it to really have an opinion tbh. On initial thought, if we allow breaking up monopolies on business, I'm not sure I see breaking up ownership of conglomerates or huge companies as much different, even if it ends up going to family members or whatever.
It's not about "taking their money" but rather about systemically increasing the difficulty for rich people to extend their lead and decreasing the difficulty for poor people to get by.
Right, but by that logic it would theoretically incentivize growth to other professions, which I'm being told is desperately needed.
I don't think I agree that the reason most people don't have money or are struggling to get by is because they are lazy. I also think it's the other side that is the one dictating what someone "should" be paid. Because if workers are at a shortage, they should be paid more.
But after being convinced over the last 2 years that immigration was a legitimate problem, I'm now being told the plan is to introduce legislation to open up the borders to allow extra workers because the game isn't fair enough for billionaires? THAT's putting the finger on the scale imo.
I always think it's interesting when people make various arguments in defense of the ultra wealthy, as if redistribution of their wealth is some sort of theft born out of envy, as if the system isn't rigged by the people with power, for the people with power. The short sightedness of where greed leads to never ceases to amaze me either. This ain't physics, one doesn't need a PHD to get the picture. A little reading, some graphs, and even a small level of historical knowledge pretty much lays it out. The individualization of institutional problems is literally corporate propaganda. Not only that, but there are some self aware rich people who've spoken out about greed too.
The "average" person in that case was the rest of the sample, but no sir - I'm rather suggesting that they need less help than the "average person" does today.
Respectfully, I feel like the one-time transfer of wealth argument is a bit disingenuous though because that completely negates the downstream effect of having wealth.
Meaning, if millionaires and billionaires were spending their entire net worth in the economy on goods, etc, I don't know that it would be detrimental. The problem is that the way the system is designed, having money often creates more money, therefore, increasing the disparity and worsening conditions for those at the bottom of the rat race. So, it's not just the trillions they have hoarded today, but the ability to use those trillions to grow exponentially at a rate detrimental to the rest of society. And while the economy is not a zero-sum game imo, it is a "relative-sum" game imo where the more wealth created does end up affecting the lower class via inflation, influence, etc.
-----
Now to be fair to your side, net worth obv isn't liquid cash so we obviously can't just force rich people (or often even incentivize them) to "spend" that and, more importantly, their net worth is often variable due to stock price etc. So, I think your natural follow up question makes sense.
I don't inherently think there should be an artificial cap on personal wealth, but for sure I think the system should be gamed to slow them down exponentially. In terms of companies/stock there is probably a moral question of whether someone should be able to wield such a large power of a business that is so economically important, but I haven't thought enough about it to really have an opinion tbh. On initial thought, if we allow breaking up monopolies on business, I'm not sure I see breaking up ownership of conglomerates or huge companies as much different, even if it ends up going to family members or whatever.
It's not about "taking their money" but rather about systemically increasing the difficulty for rich people to extend their lead and decreasing the difficulty for poor people to get by.
Right, but by that logic it would theoretically incentivize growth to other professions, which I'm being told is desperately needed.
I don't think I agree that the reason most people don't have money or are struggling to get by is because they are lazy. I also think it's the other side that is the one dictating what someone "should" be paid. Because if workers are at a shortage, they should be paid more.
But after being convinced over the last 2 years that immigration was a legitimate problem, I'm now being told the plan is to introduce legislation to open up the borders to allow extra workers because the game isn't fair enough for billionaires? THAT's putting the finger on the scale imo.
On your first paragraph on millionaires, having money can lead to creating more money, but there are many millionaires that have went bankrupt. If you get something before you know how to handle it well and you try to handle it, it can easily slip out of your hands, that is the way it is with anything.
One thing I forgot about and forgot to mention is that this whole argument hinges on statistical categories. People moving from one statistical category into another are seldom ever mentioned because if you look at a person's career you could very clearly see that most people move between both the income and wealth categories throughout their careers. Let's take a look at the some of the millionaires for example, Johny Depp, child of a waitress and civil engineer, wasn't exactly born into a rich family, he had to play in many movies before he got his big break. If anything the entertainment industry is one of the ways in which people can work themselves out of a low income into a high income because it scales so well. There are others such as IT, that's probably why so many people that were born in California and grew up during certain years when computer technology and software was exploding in interest and popularity also became rich(with lots of application, luck and meeting the right people).
As for employers dictating wages, they might complain all they want but they know eventually they will have to raise them because if they don't they will lose, and they will lose big.
Now as for people struggling to get by, I do not believe the people with the median net worth of $192,900 reported in the "Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2019 to 2022 Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances" that the Federal Reserve published are at all struggling. If you look into that report on page twelve you can also see what I mentioned previously that as people move through their career they get richer and richer. For example the median net worth of someone 35 and under was $39k, for someone 35-44 years of age it was $135.6K, for someone 45-54 years of age it was $247.2K, for someone 55-64 years of age $364k, and on and on. You will have to excuse me but people who are amassing more and more wealth as they age, its hard for me to call them struggling people.
I tell ya what though those Asians are RAPING our little asses in that net worth game though. The know how to amass that wealth in the USA baby! $536k median net worth for the Asians? Get that money kings!
As for the immigration problem, if I understood part of the problem that Trump was running on it was that ILLEGAL immigration was unwelcome, but that legal immigration is welcome. That is of course understandable, because one thing about people that come into this country illegally is that you can't vet them in any way. If they come here legally, you can vet them and make them jump through all sorts of hoops to make sure they are the law abiding, hoop jumping type.
One thing that I think is lost in all this is that people see someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or really any billionaire. They think he is pathetic and sad, because he is trying so hard to get more and more, even though he has so much. They never come to their sense and realize, all this wealth is really not worthwhile. Instead they keep complaining that they should have more wealth for themselves. How is it that you see someone wealthy? You see how sad they are, how pathetic they are in so many ways and you don't realize, it's not worthwhile in anyway. It facilitates a few things, you can pay a few bills and buy a few things, but other than that there is really nothing to it. Anyways you are doing that now, anyways you are paying bills and buying a few things now, what will you do with more? Over-glorify the survival process, like all the millionaires and and billionaires have?
One thing I forgot about and forgot to mention is that this whole argument hinges on statistical categories. People moving from one statistical category into another are seldom ever mentioned because if you look at a person's career you could very clearly see that most people move between both the income and wealth categories throughout their careers. Let's take a look at the some of the millionaires for example, Johny Depp, child of a waitress and civil engineer, wasn't exactly born into a rich family, he had to play in many movies before he got his big break. If anything the entertainment industry is one of the ways in which people can work themselves out of a low income into a high income because it scales so well. There are others such as IT, that's probably why so many people that were born in California and grew up during certain years when computer technology and software was exploding in interest and popularity also became rich(with lots of application, luck and meeting the right people).
As for employers dictating wages, they might complain all they want but they know eventually they will have to raise them because if they don't they will lose, and they will lose big.
Now as for people struggling to get by, I do not believe the people with the median net worth of $192,900 reported in the "Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2019 to 2022 Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances" that the Federal Reserve published are at all struggling. If you look into that report on page twelve you can also see what I mentioned previously that as people move through their career they get richer and richer. For example the median net worth of someone 35 and under was $39k, for someone 35-44 years of age it was $135.6K, for someone 45-54 years of age it was $247.2K, for someone 55-64 years of age $364k, and on and on. You will have to excuse me but people who are amassing more and more wealth as they age, its hard for me to call them struggling people.
Those are family stats, not individual, my friend. They are sorted by "reference individual", who is the most economically dominant individual in the family. This means those numbers often include multiple people, which I think is especially true in 2025 as less people are able to afford a SAH situation.
As for the immigration problem, if I understood part of the problem that Trump was running on it was that ILLEGAL immigration was unwelcome, but that legal immigration is welcome. That is of course understandable, because one thing about people that come into this country illegally is that you can't vet them in any way. If they come here legally, you can vet them and make them jump through all sorts of hoops to make sure they are the law abiding, hoop jumping type.
Trump was a supporter of the RAISE act, which aimed to cut legal immigration by 50%. He's been against a number of currently legal immigration policies including implementing harsher restrictions on H-1Bs themselves. I don't understand this narrative switch that we were only talking about illegals hopping the border for the last 10 years lol.
One thing that I think is lost in all this is that people see someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or really any billionaire. They think he is pathetic and sad, because he is trying so hard to get more and more, even though he has so much. They never come to their sense and realize, all this wealth is really not worthwhile. Instead they keep complaining that they should have more wealth for themselves. How is it that you see someone wealthy? You see how sad they are, how pathetic they are in so many ways and you don't realize, it's not worthwhile in anyway. It facilitates a few things, you can pay a few bills and buy a few things, but other than that there is really nothing to it. Anyways you are doing that now, anyways you are paying bills and buying a few things now, what will you do with more? Over-glorify the survival process, like all the millionaires and and billionaires have?
I don't disagree with you in a philosophical Buddhist/Fight Club "the things you own end up owning you" perspective that wealth can be greener grass, but I think the biggest difference between the two is not poor folks' jealousy of not being able to afford a second or third yacht, but rather the idea that poor folks are going to go bankrupt if they get laid off or they get too sick.
And the response is usually "well just work harder and get a better job and save up", but we are giving away and automating the best jobs. If menial normal jobs don't pay enough to survive, then I don't understand how we expect people to survive and plan for unseen events. Everyone can't just "be one of the best" and the right doesn't like socializing the rest.
I honestly don't think people would hate billionaires as much as they do if they weren't personally struggling to get by and I just think more folks are struggling today than many seem to realize.
Elon loves H1B staff because they'll work for lower pay and will tolerate far more abuse from an employer as their visa status is tied to employment.
We dirty hippies have been trying to tell you all for years, Elon hates working class people.
Don't be fooled cause he smoked a joint with Rogan one time, he is not your friend.
He just wants to exploit you harder.
When Elon praises work culture in China, what he really means is that he thinks a 66-72 hour work week (11-12 hour shifts, 6 days per week) should be the norm instead of 40 hours, and that US worker protections should be on par with those in the PRC.
I don't think he hates working class people. He just thinks everyone should work 70 - 80 hour weeks and that is normal. He is a workaholic himself and expects that of others. That's why he loves Asian culture, that is normal over there. At Tesla, he literally lived at the Tesla building and slept under a table for a few hours a night.
So yeah, not a great person to work for unless you want to sacrifice your life for your job. Not a good union representative. I think he will do great in the DOGE role.
I don't think he hates working class people. He just thinks everyone should work 70 - 80 hour weeks and that is normal. He is a workaholic himself and expects that of others. That's why he loves Asian culture, that is normal over there. At Tesla, he literally lived at the Tesla building and slept under a table for a few hours a night.
So yeah, not a great person to work for unless you want to sacrifice your life for your job. Not a good union representative. I think he will do great in the DOGE role.
I think it is clear he and Vivek and Trump connect the CULTURE and work ethic of American's generally to something they hate and think sucks. And that they think they need a LOT of foreign brown workers brought in to America, if they are going to be able to make it great again.
They simply do not believe American workers are up the job and if they are given a free market they would not hire them.
What Trump and Elon and Vivek all agree on, is that for America to be great again, it requires LOTS of foreign workers with superior culture and work ethics to be brought in or America will FAIL in the global market place due to poor culture and work talent.
The issue with most Magats is that they look increasingly at people like Marjorie Greene, Lauren Boebert, and increasing cast of worse characters as the best people they can push in to leadership in all sectors of American life. Magats are dumb and thbink the dumb should lead us all.
Thankfully Trump and Elon and Vivek know we need to CHANGE American culture by bring in LOTS of superior culture others.
That video clarifies Elon's position that he simply thinks American workers are not and were NEVER up to the job as he states the ONLY reason he built his companies in America was access to the H-1B visa program to get the type of workers he needed and wanted.
@Mr Holmes is capitulating finally that the leaders the magats venerated and thought were magatdum's saviours, in fact think they are worthless, when it comes to the highest paying fields in America and that they are only suited for lower pay range jobs.
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.industryweek.com
