/fa/ - Fashion

>>13017484
It is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7as0pFxPYc
>To understand the emergence of political correctness, social justice, modern feminism, etc., one must first understand the history of critical theory/Cultural Marxism.

>>13017030
>I also want to say that I love the design of these shoes.
According to pic related, they are called 'plain toe blucher'.

The whole or some part of the outfit is supposedly from the designer Dries van Noten, as indicated in the filename.

>>13017010
>They all look nice, but some of them look like they would be over dressing for philosophy class.
That is true, but then being a Philosophy Major itself is overdressing for Academia.

>I could really use some pants like this.
The cut of it is called 'extra slim' or 'extra skinny', and it has maybe been tailored to his body. I too really like it compared to the skinny jeans I'm used to and now worn out by.

>I like this one, I don't know where I'd find those sorts of clothes though lol.
The jacket is a tuxedo jacket that is either long or slightly too big for him. You can tell by the lapels. The shirt seems to be a tank top, and the pants are pinstripe dress pants, possibly pleated.

>Looks a little over dressed
That one is supposed to represent a look if you tried to be more of a normal young adult, a more casual look. I'd say it's more realistic for what an aspiring fashionable college student would wear.
I wear black boots: Turf Stomper, by Bogs Footwear. It's made of rubber and is waterproof. I'd recommend it if you are an all-terrain kind of guy, or if the weather is not always pleasant.

Is there any particular direction posted so far that lurkers would like to see more of?

>>13016808
more just a typical college student. when I was an underclassman, I wasn't wearing any of these fits, nor is anyone in my department. It's a retrospective ideal. I was wearing slim/skinny jeans and a hoody.

I'm posting a range of ideas about this nebulous concept of the philosophy major. The image in question captures a more realistic look as well as a more hip one. If it's not your style, that's fine.

>>13016716
>To address the specific problem of "trickle down economics", I propose that we raise taxes on the wealthiest .1 of 1%, who own half of the wealth.
Which taxes? Individual income taxes? Corporate tax rates? Property taxes? All of them?
According to these two articles,
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
>The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.
>The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).
Do you believe that this is not enough money being collected? Or are you willing to entertain the possibility that the government is rather handling that tax revenue in an inefficient manner? For rather than seeing
>someone who works 2 jobs to feed their family can barely survive on what they have
and believing that the wealth is being hoarded by the rich, you can instead believe that the government isn't spending the money they do get from the rich well enough to raise the poor's standard of living.
>There needs to be government mandated programs to take the wealth of the wealthy
There already is.

>>13016642
They may well can be. Who wants to feel sorry for a poor woman as this: a single mother college dropout who spends her welfare food money on junk food and eschews taking time to acquire non-government income, instead spending the time seeking entertainment? Social inequalities are not always the fault solely of the system. Individual responsibility and life choices do often come into play in a big way

>>13016608
>people who work their asses off at lower income jobs can make a living
These people tend to be living in highly desirable urban areas like New York, Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle, and at low-skill jobs like customer service. Meanwhile, people with a marketable skill are usually able to get by, because their employer will compensate them for their labor accordingly at a higher pay grade. The people who don't do well also tend to be burdened with families to feed, and are sometimes guilty of spending on non-necessities. There are a variety of factors that come into people not being able to "make a living" besides their not being paid "enough" by their employer. The simple solution is still to move somewhere more affordable.

>Countries like the netherlands have higher minimum wage and social programs which are mandated, and they have less working hours, they get payed more
And as you can see here
https://www.expatax.nl/tax-rates-2016
They pay heavily for it in total tax rates up to 2/5 of their income---~40%.
Now, you might be willing to accept a loss of 40% of your income and be happier in exchange for these government mandated programs, but imagine how many fewer things you could afford taking such a pay cut than you do now. It's not a palatable prospect for a lot of people.
>Not accepting marxism is simply a failure to look outside of own's own cultural proximity and find different ways of life.
Cultural Marxism isn't the same thing as Marxism, so we're discussing something different than the original prompt. And Marxism as an analytical method is different from Marxism as an ideology. As an ideology, Marxism assumes that the workers, or the state, or the state and the workers, can be effective business owners like enterprising individuals, which is up for debate.

>>13016608
>The profits of the united states are set up in a top heavy "trickle down" system, in which the wealth is concentrated on the top and those on the bottom do not receive that wealth.
I assume that by "the top", you mean business owners and upper-level management, or more generally whoever is an employer, and by "those on the bottom" you mean workers, employees, and the unemployed.
Leaving aside the unemployed, within a typical business, yes, the higher up the chain you go, the greater share of wealth you net, for the reason that I said before about customers.
>There needs to be regulations on society so that the wealth isn't simply taken by the top wealthiest people in society
Where does this wealth come from? Again, I come back to my explanation about employer, employee, and customers. The business owner decides, with their employee, how much the employee's labor will be compensated. This is a more or less fixed amount, that the employer is obligated to pay whether or not the business does well. So the employee is financially secure, and does not share their employer's risk. However, they consequently do not get more wealth as the business does better like the employer does; but the employee, upon being hired, agreed to these terms.
"Society", the economy, is made up of myriads of these relationships. Therefore, in saying that
>There needs to be regulations on society
you are saying that the government needs to intervene in how these businesses run themselves---implicitly, that it is wrong that successful business owners are rewarded by profit. What, exactly, do you propose?

>>13016605
>the non-guarantee of profit of the businessowner versus the employer
versus the *employee

>>13016565
>Socialism and capitalism exist on a spectrum
That is quite unimaginative thinking. Of course there will be no alternatives to either system if people insist on seeing them as the only two possible options. Be wary of dichotomous thinking.
>this is not a matter of one over the other, but a balance, is what I would say to anyone who is against the economic principles of marxism.
So you would like a cross between socialism and capitalism as the socioeconomic system? As far as I know, this is not what the strain of leftism of which cultural Marxism is a part has in mind.

>If you truly feel that there should be social inequalities, then you really are no different from a fascist
That is not what capitalism compels. The social inequality will be a mere fact of life, and not a desired situation. It is not, "There should be social inequalities", but rather, "There will be social inequalities". It is a consequence of the system that, ideally, will punish the grasshopper who watches the ants prepare for winter.

>>13016565
>>13016597
cont.
>Who "pays" the business owner is the customer; who "pays" the employee is the business owner.
The business owner has many "customers", or will strive to have as many as possible, whereas the employee will only have the one "customer", their employer, the business owner. As the employer gets more and more customers, their revenue increases; the employee being under contract for a certain amount of pay, regardless of whether the business gets more or less than enough customers, will see no change in their wages outside of raises or bonuses. My point is that it is entirely possible and not at all unfair, from an equality of opportunity standpoint, to end up with the situation you describe as "some get payed exponentially more while not working any more than those they employ". You only judge it as unfair because you are valuing an equality of outcome standpoint that ignores certain critical facts, such as the amount of risk involved in starting a business, the large amount of capital required to start one, the non-guarantee of profit of the businessowner versus the employer, and so on. Equality of outcome demands that the potential harm that the business owner took on in starting their business and operating it is deemed less weighty than the ideal of equal compensation for the employee to their employer. You call that fair; but you should easily see why others would not.

>>13016565
>What you call cultural marxism is egalitarianism and social progress
Calling it "social progress" is your subjective assessment of it. It's correct to say that it values the state andor concept of 'egalitarianism'.
>which threatens the establishment and people who are used to being in power
It threatens a certain sector of the establishment. Wealth redistribution goes against the interest of the wealthy, mostly in the commercial sector, but it requires giving power to the government to carry out this wealth distribution. More power such as this can lead to the entrenchment of an establishment or elite in the government sector.
>Make no mistake, the human race can be a bunch of selfish, scrooge like people, and that is why we have those among us who call what is happening "cultural marxism", when in fact it is an advancement towards a more fair and egalitarian society.
There are at least two kind of conceptualizations of equality: equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity prizes giving everyone a fair chance to succeed in life, while equality of outcome prizes making sure everyone gets the same standard of living, as high as you can give them. Cultural Marxism, or rather contemporary mainstream liberalism, is an equality of outcome philosophy that tries to corral everyone into more or less the same standard of living---but this has some costs that harm "equality" in other senses of the word.
>If you equate capitalism with an inherently unfair system where some get payed exponentially more while not working any more than those they employ... then yes I would say I see a fair deal of inequality in the society we live in similar to the inherent conditions of unregulated capitalism.
You have a misguided image of capitalism. First, you conflate the profit of the business owner and the employee. Who "pays" the business owner is the customer; who "pays" the employee is the business owner.
cont.

>>13016409
>Philosophy today
I don't see what you're looking at. If you're talking about pop philosophy, or talking heads, then sure, but it seems to me that when people trash philosophy, they're dismissing that along with everything pre-2000s.

>it's also gotten a bad name from certain currents in it
Such as cultural Marxism?

>>13008223
>>13008263
>>13008281
>>13008287
>>13008291
>>13008322
>>13008401
>>13008438
>>13008452
>>13008492
>>13008814
>>13011949
>>13014442

>>13016245
np