I thought that the rule was supposed to be two months income.
I guess Jeff doesn't really love his new wife.
91 0 ReplyJesus Christ. Two months' income is so insane. I'd be pissed if my boyfriend bought me a ring that expensive.
57 0 ReplyTwo months is what DeBeirs, the assholes who hold a monopoly on diamonds, arbitrarily told people to spend on a diamond.
Ultimately it should be what makes both parties happy.
58 0 Replyyou might not mind too much if you lived in a time when women didn't have their own bank accounts or source of income not controlled by their husbands. it was actually a decent rule when it was the only thing of real value you truly owned and could sell if you needed to gtfo of an abusive relationship or give you a bit of breathing room if you were widowed suddenly (and your husband's family decided not to take care of you once he was gone).
but yes, now a days is definitely overkill.
15 0 ReplyMy ass was confused there's a different category for wedding rings that has this generally insane pricing. There are a lot of other ways to show a partner they are special. Like a memorable trip for two somewhere nice can go well under that.
8 0 Reply
jeffery is not capable of human emotions like love and empathy
6 0 Reply
The system as it is cannot continue this way. Something must break.
12 0 ReplyCan I suggest the necks of all billionaires?
10 0 ReplyNothing will change until the rich and rightwingers are all killed
5 0 ReplyFingers crossed, but im not optimistic that will be the first thing.
2 0 Reply
Hoping it will be the necks of the wealthy, confident it will be sonething bigger and more precious.
1 0 Reply
Earned on the backs of working class.
Did Amazon ever acknowledge or deign to negotiate with the unions formed by their workers?
39 0 ReplyYou must pee in a bottle and process a package in 25 seconds...... For the prosperity of Bezos.
18 0 ReplyFor the prosperity of Bezos.
That sounded like a legit chant.
7 0 Reply
Sorry, warehouse is closed.
10 0 Reply
The actual number is 0.000021, or 0.0021%. If you make $50,000 a year, 0.000021 is just $1.05. Bezos spending $5 million on a ring has the same effect on his net wealth as our 50k per year guy spending $1.05 on a wedding ring.
Cheap fucker didn't even come close to spending two months salary on his big love.
7 0 ReplyI don't understand how more people aren't upset by this. I guess that's why they installed Trump, to keep us mad about everything else...
19 0 ReplyCurrent net worth you mean?
38 0 ReplyRaisin network on average.
14 0 ReplyI want to learn how to increase my net raisin.
1 0 Reply
Quickest, simplest fix would be to treat borrowing against unrealized capital gains as income for tax purposes.
6 0 ReplyLuigi... Luigi what? Does anybody remember that name?
15 0 ReplyOnly 0.000021%. It seems you accidentally threw in an extra zero.
11 0 ReplyThe fact an order of magnitude made functionally no difference is ridiculous.
10 0 ReplyHe's actually three zeros off.
It's 0.0021%
9 0 ReplyCame to upvote this
1 0 ReplyDamn, you're right. I forgot to account for the conversion to %.
4 0 Reply
Much better.
4 0 ReplyOrder of magnitude better. Three orders of magnitudes better once you also fix the misuse of percentages.
2 0 Reply
TCP/IP? IPX? Arcnet? Token ring?
8 0 ReplyAs bad as things are, most Americans are not living paycheck to paycheck. It looks like that 60% figure comes from a single survey from an online banking company in 2023. The Fed reports the majority of US adults have had at least 3 months of emergency savings every year since 2018.
4 0 ReplyNetwork?
4 0 ReplyNet worth*
3 0 ReplyOh, I get it. Your network is your net worth.
3 0 Reply
I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!
1 0 ReplyDang thanks! Spell correct bitting me hard
1 0 ReplyBitting?
1 0 Reply
What does Bernie mean by real tax rate? How is he calculating that 1.1%
2 0 ReplyNet worth is two words.
1 0 Reply1 0 Reply