People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...
Because no one's ever been screwed over by the system, or just on hard luck.
The system is the system. Without it, we'd be just as bad off as poor countries elsewhere in the world.
Someone somewhere is going to get screwed, thats just how it is. We may not like it but we have to accept it.
No system will ever be perfect, everyone will game it to get ahead and that will lead to people getting screwed. And thats whats nice about it, everyone has a chance to make it. Not everyone has an equal chance, but that was never promised. Its just that in America you have a better chance than anywhere else.
And it's life that other people should want their share back. If you claim that hereditary wealth is legitimately owned, then it must also be legitimate for those without wealth to own it. Put simply if someone's ancestor's stole land from your ancestor, you have every right to forcefully reclaim it, just as they have every right to defend it.
Conversely, no civilised society can tolerate the theft of property. So wealth distribution becomes more complex, and frankly more effective than outright theft. If the government taxes a rich man £200 and gives that money to a poor family, it's better for society as a whole than the damage to property and people that would result from forceful redistribution.
The problem i have, anytime we try to even distribute wealth a little bit, like use taxes to pay for poorer income students Tuition or daycare it is decried as socialism. People need help that is a fact, if we want to help people, people have to be willing to give.
whembly wrote: People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...
The chief exec of the hospital I work at earns more in a day than I do in 3 weeks (plus other sources of income). I as a mid to low level employee have little in the way of a negotiating power to get a "fairer" wage given that I work solidly for 8 hours every day with no breaks (I am entitled to have breaks but there is too much work to do as there has been a hire freeze for quite a long time - even though we just hired a new chief exec... and several more managers...).
I've now completed an MSc and am looking to move into a job where I start on a wage almost twice that of what I make now, and it is still not a particularly high wage. And still nothing like the wage of the top levels of management of most companies.
The work they do isn't markedly harder than anything I do, so why is their time worth so much more than the average worker? Hell, why is it worth so much more than even the most highly skilled, educated and experienced workers?
Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
BryllCream wrote: And it's life that other people should want their share back. If you claim that hereditary wealth is legitimately owned, then it must also be legitimate for those without wealth to own it. Put simply if someone's ancestor's stole land from your ancestor, you have every right to forcefully reclaim it, just as they have every right to defend it.
Sure... we tell that the Native Indians all the time... they were conquer'ed. Now assimilate!
Conversely, no civilised society can tolerate the theft of property.
Stop... what's your definition of "theft"... just so that we're clear.
So wealth distribution becomes more complex, and frankly more effective than outright theft.
THATs theft... no matter how much you're worth.
Paying a tax, that's a civic duty. But increasing the tax rate, just so that the gubmint can redistribute wealth IS theft.
If the government taxes a rich man £200 and gives that money to a poor family, it's better for society as a whole than the damage to property and people that would result from forceful redistribution.
In your opinion...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: The problem i have, anytime we try to even distribute wealth a little bit, like use taxes to pay for poorer income students Tuition or daycare it is decried as socialism.
Wealth redistribution is a form of theft.
People need help that is a fact, if we want to help people, people have to be willing to give.
whembly wrote: People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...
The chief exec of the hospital I work at earns more in a day than I do in 3 weeks (plus other sources of income). I as a mid to low level employee have little in the way of a negotiating power to get a "fairer" wage given that I work solidly for 8 hours every day with no breaks (I am entitled to have breaks but there is too much work to do as there has been a hire freeze for quite a long time - even though we just hired a new chief exec... and several more managers...).
I've now completed an MSc and am looking to move into a job where I start on a wage almost twice that of what I make now, and it is still not a particularly high wage. And still nothing like the wage of the top levels of management of most companies.
The work they do isn't markedly harder than anything I do, so why is their time worth so much more than the average worker? Hell, why is it worth so much more than even the most highly skilled, educated and experienced workers?
Do you know that their work is or isn't harder? Who are you to judge what their job is worth? It may require additional experience that you simply don't have, experience they aquired through additional schooling or simply working in the field for 20+ years.
And you arn't the person that determines what your job is worth, the employer is who determines that. You are always free to leave your job if you don't think you are being paid enough to find another one.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
Just giving money indefinitly is a bad idea, that is why im talking about things like Grants, Scholarships and fee waivers. Things that help poorer elements of society get a leg up.
Grey Templar wrote: Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation.
Once you get to a certain level of "wealth" it becomes self sustaining. You could work 23 hours a day 365 days a year and still "earn" more from trust funds, stocks and shares etc... What exactly is the incentive to the richest people to go out and work hard to get more money when they have tends or hundreds of millions, perhaps billions in the bank?
Conversely, where is the incentive for the lowest paid workers to go out and work hard and work their way up the ladder when 80% of that ladder isn't very well paid compared to what they get anyway and most of it will be barred to them because their family couldn't afford to send them off to university and they don't have a network of old boys to help them out?
The money of the wealthiest doesn't create wealth; only a small amount of that money is being used to generate wealth. Wealth is created through spending and too much of the top %'s money goes into generating money for the top %'s in a great big feedback loop.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
Just giving money indefinitly is a bad idea, that is why im talking about things like Grants, Scholarships and fee waivers. Things that help poorer elements of society get a leg up.
Yeah... I don't think anyone is really arguing against those sorts of thing. That's a different sort of topic than this thread.
BryllCream wrote: And it's life that other people should want their share back. If you claim that hereditary wealth is legitimately owned, then it must also be legitimate for those without wealth to own it. Put simply if someone's ancestor's stole land from your ancestor, you have every right to forcefully reclaim it, just as they have every right to defend it.
Conversely, no civilised society can tolerate the theft of property. So wealth distribution becomes more complex, and frankly more effective than outright theft. If the government taxes a rich man £200 and gives that money to a poor family, it's better for society as a whole than the damage to property and people that would result from forceful redistribution.
What if the government taxes a rich man $200 but a middle class man $100 to give $30 to the poor family and $270 to government employees?
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
Just giving money indefinitly is a bad idea, that is why im talking about things like Grants, Scholarships and fee waivers. Things that help poorer elements of society get a leg up.
Yeah... I don't think anyone is really arguing against those sorts of thing. That's a different sort of topic than this thread.
The thing is, that is how quite a bit of wealth distribution goes, into schooling. A bit go into welfare. But when people hear "Redistribution of wealth" they think you just take money and give it to other people for no charge.
Grey Templar wrote: Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation.
Once you get to a certain level of "wealth" it becomes self sustaining. You could work 23 hours a day 365 days a year and still "earn" more from trust funds, stocks and shares etc... What exactly is the incentive to the richest people to go out and work hard to get more money when they have tends or hundreds of millions, perhaps billions in the bank?
Conversely, where is the incentive for the lowest paid workers to go out and work hard and work their way up the ladder when 80% of that ladder isn't very well paid compared to what they get anyway and most of it will be barred to them because their family couldn't afford to send them off to university and they don't have a network of old boys to help them out?
The money of the wealthiest doesn't create wealth; only a small amount of that money is being used to generate wealth. Wealth is created through spending and too much of the top %'s money goes into generating money for the top %'s in a great big feedback loop.
Yes it does. The wealthy have money in the banks.
This money is lent out to business owners who expand/create their businesses. Which creates Jobs for people. Its called the money multiplier effect, and its quite powerful.
So while the wealthy themselves may not spend this money, it is being spent by people that borrow it.
This actually creates more wealth than the rich spending it directly because the money is still there to be borrowed against.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
Just giving money indefinitly is a bad idea, that is why im talking about things like Grants, Scholarships and fee waivers. Things that help poorer elements of society get a leg up.
Yeah... I don't think anyone is really arguing against those sorts of thing. That's a different sort of topic than this thread.
The thing is, that is how quite a bit of wealth distribution goes, into schooling. A bit go into welfare. But when people hear "Redistribution of wealth" they think you just take money and give it to other people for no charge.
You're talking about taxation and where it gets spent.
While that's tangental to this conversation, I'm talking about that video arguing about wealth inequality... it's really nothing more that class envy/greed. Same old story really (same sort of thing that 'cuz Romney has a horse, they don't understand hard working people... just another skin here).
In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.
Please note, I'm advocating that we do away with these saftey nets...
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
No. Wage rates are determined by markets, and the market is skewed against the poor.
Case in point - last year the manager of a group of factories that I work for paid himself a £12m bonus. He is 101 on the Times Rich List. Also last year, our contracts were changed - overtime went from time and a half to time and quarter, the bank holiday premium was removed, unsociable hours premium was removed, and the pay increase was 1% below inflation. Sales were up 10%.
Now, why has this happened? It's happened because the last time a factory went on strike over a decrease in their pay and conditions, the factory was shut down and the workers made redundant. Concequentaly, even though the union is quite big at our factory, they're very reluctant to go on strike, so by and large simply agree to the management's offers. The root cause of this is the anti-union laws implimented by the Thatcher/Blair governments, and since then large employers in the UK have by and large simply ignored the unions, so the income of the bottom 50% has stagnated, even as productivity has risen steadily.
I only said that if a businessman has the ability to grow his business, he will employ more people.
Of course getting more efficient equipment that reduces the employees you need is a problem. But not one anyone can change, or should. Nobody is doing anything wrong.
In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.
Please note, I'm advocating that we do away with these saftey nets...
I disagree with the former statement. I live a few blocks away from very poor neighborhood's. The poor are not well off where I am, many survive on maybe only 20$ a week.
Compared to 3rd world countries, yeah they are well off, but that isnt what we are talking about.
And what safety nets? You mean the ones where if you loose your job you are up gak creek without a paddle.
Grey Templar wrote: This actually creates more wealth than the rich spending it directly because the money is still there to be borrowed against.
"A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy."
One of the reasons that trickle down economics don't work. Apparently the rich are more keen on keeping their money safe and sound than in use it to generate wealth for everyone else
Hell, we saw when the economy tanked the banks were the first ones to stop lending, instead hoarding their money.
Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.
Or at the very least get tax havens to move to the US itself so the money can still be lent out. Have reduced tax types of accounts that they can keep some of their money in.
In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.
Please note, I'm advocating that we do away with these saftey nets...
I disagree with the former statement. I live a few blocks away from very poor neighborhood's. The poor are not well off where I am, many survive on maybe only 20$ a week.
Compared to 3rd world countries, yeah they are well off, but that isnt what we are talking about.
And what safety nets? You mean the ones where if you loose your job you are up gak creek without a paddle.
First of all, there's no quick fix...
Secondly, answer me this... who's responsible for those jobs?
Grey Templar wrote: Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.
Hahaha!
That's why even with your current low taxes on the wealthy they use every trick in the book to ensure that they pay as little as they can and still ship their money overseas to keep it nice and untaxable... erm... I mean... to generate wealth for everyone...
In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.
Please note, I'm advocating that we do away with these saftey nets...
I disagree with the former statement. I live a few blocks away from very poor neighborhood's. The poor are not well off where I am, many survive on maybe only 20$ a week.
Compared to 3rd world countries, yeah they are well off, but that isnt what we are talking about.
And what safety nets? You mean the ones where if you loose your job you are up gak creek without a paddle.
First of all, there's no quick fix...
Secondly, answer me this... who's responsible for those jobs?
I know there is now quick fix, hell there may not even be a way to fix it.
But it also depends who you are working for. but typically the managers or the location you are working for.
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
I only said that if a businessman has the ability to grow his business, he will employ more people.
Of course getting more efficient equipment that reduces the employees you need is a problem. But not one anyone can change, or should. Nobody is doing anything wrong.
Lack of available capital isn't really holding back our economy. We have a lack of demand, caused by recession and government cuts, while FTSE 100 companies have plenty of cash. Wealth is being redistributed in our economy - one shop shuts and another opens (even if it's virtual). But it's not growing, and that's not because of a lack of money to invest.
Generally people want to be comfortable. The "ideal" distribution of wealth, as suggested by that graphic doesn't leave the wealthy destitute. It has a clear differential between the "poor" and middle class and the richer.
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
People are people. However, I don't think anyone other than the very rich would object to a slightly more level playing field. A fiscally fluid middle class and (in the case of the "ideal" distribution) a much less fiscally oppressed "poor" class creates a market for all sorts of goods and services. Now that generates wealth. And reduces the cost of welfare, incidentally
Grey Templar wrote: The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
It seems that we can't stop the current government spending... because in the past, increased govt spending can help the economy...
But, more so, something must be done to "incentivise" more private investiment for job growth... how do you do that?
-Get out of the way for one (meaning relax some regulations).
-Targeted taxs cut
Grey Templar wrote: The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
Grey Templar wrote: Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.
I'm pretty sure time isn't the only factor at work....
Oh well, guess we're fine then, the magic time fairies will fix it all, in time.
Makes me wonder why those stupid economists don't realize that they could fix the economy (whatever context we're even referring to that by at this point) by just forecasting when it will be back up again, and then having congress sign a bill setting the current date to that date. Surely us Internet People can't be smarter than them, right?
Grey Templar wrote: The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
No, but giving a larger percentage of what you have than the next guy may make you less greedy. Unless we're going to do one of those things where we assume it's still out of some twisted sense of self-interest and redefine charity into being a personal vice.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.
Or at the very least get tax havens to move to the US itself so the money can still be lent out. Have reduced tax types of accounts that they can keep some of their money in.
That way it can still get lent out.
They can only shelter it in tax havens if you permit tax havens in the tax code.
This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.
This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.
Why is it immoral for the person at the top to make more money?
This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.
Why is it immoral for the person at the top to make more money?
That a progressive rate of rewards for seniority in business should exist is not in question.
What is being criticized is that in the last 30 years, we have seen the gap increasingly widening and that the poverty being experienced at the other end worsening.
The vaulted defense of 'well, work harder' or 'anyone can rise to the top' is a fallacy, the established wealthy reinforce and close their ranks, wealth does not trickle down, the more the money remains at a higher and higher strata and smaller and smaller number of people, the less everyone else gets. Remember in that video, that there is less wealth for the middle class and even less wealth for the top 20 when it's locked up in the top 1% to the extend of being several fold what everyone else has.
*- The uppermost are not paying their fair share of taxes, not even the same percentage as someone on low wages.
*- It is more and more difficult to break into the upper echelons.
*- The gap is continuing to widen.
*- Trickledown does not work.
*- Wealth at higher levels is inherited, billionaires spawn billionaires, this further prevents competitive 'free market' true capitalism and instead creates a caste system.
*- These super rich elements increasing look to cut cost from wages, forcing lower and lower wages on the middle class or moving business abroad, without censure, profiting further and increasingly forcing from the middle class into the underclass.
This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.
The facts are pretty clear. The rich have seen their wealth grow while the poor and middle class have seen theirs wiped out. CEOs get millions in bonuses by cutting benefits, hours, jobs and pay to their employees. The same scam happens with taxes. The wealthy control politics and make sure to take care of themselves, all the while cutting funding to everyone else. It's pretty disgusting. Seriously how much money do you need?
The Rich and more to the point the Super Rich, use lobbyists (professional bribery) to get whatever they want passed through the government. My favorite tactic, which is very strong right now is when they use the Media to spin the blame on the poor and brainwash the middle class into supporting the rich.
The system is set up to benefit the rich and they see no reason why they should pay for the system.
Makes me wonder why those stupid economists don't realize that they could fix the economy (whatever context we're even referring to that by at this point) by just forecasting when it will be back up again, and then having congress sign a bill setting the current date to that date. Surely us Internet People can't be smarter than them, right?
Even if economists could figure out the magic formula to fix the situation, the political power of the Rich would crush and such movements.
Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.
Who's down? This has been a boom time for the Super Rich! Corporations claim poverty so that they can cut workers pay and benifits, all the while CEO pay and corporate profits are higher than they have ever been. There has definatly been a redistribution of wealth........it's all gone to the people who have plenty of it already.
Lack of available capital isn't really holding back our economy. We have a lack of demand, caused by recession and government cuts, while FTSE 100 companies have plenty of cash. Wealth is being redistributed in our economy - one shop shuts and another opens (even if it's virtual). But it's not growing, and that's not because of a lack of money to invest.
Lack of capitol is certainly a problem. Consumer spending is down, making it harder for businesses that actually produce goods to actually sell anything. Most of the wealth in this country doesn't buy or sell anything that is tangible in that way.
Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.
Or at the very least get tax havens to move to the US itself so the money can still be lent out. Have reduced tax types of accounts that they can keep some of their money in.
That way it can still get lent out.
Yes that's always the Rich's solution. "Tax us less!" Has that ever worked? The ideal solution is to tax them more and cut the loopholes so that they are actually contributing to the system on an even basis.
The rich are always crying about the redistribution of wealth, I'm not sure why, it seams to be working very well for them.
Why is it immoral for the person at the top to make more money?
Is that what I said?
Yes,
This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.
Did you want to add a qualifier in there maybe?
Executives don't spend all their time sitting on their fat arses, smoking expensive cigars, drinking expensive liquor, and dreaming about how rich they are and will be.
They are making decisions that effect the entire company. They are playing the cutthroat game of corporate politics. Trying to make sure their competitors don't drive them out of business. Risking the company's money on if a new product will make them money or turn into a money pit.
I wouldn't accept anything less than what these guys make to do that job. And I still might not want it, that stuff is hard work.
This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.
Did you want to add a qualifier in there maybe?
The qualifier is already in my previous statement. Even Frazzled noticed it.
In case you want it spelled out. I don't mind (overly) a payment of something like 10 times the average frontline salary, that is still a more than comfortable salary. What i do mind is the Victorian level of inequality that the current pay difference fosters, and its not as if the salaries at the top of the tree are even linked to success so the "its a really hard job" excuse doesn't cut much ice with me. In an ideal world everyone would be paid the same, unfortunately greed will always get in the way of that.
This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.
Did you want to add a qualifier in there maybe?
The qualifier is already in my previous statement. Even Frazzled noticed it.
What, social justice?
How is it justice to take money from someone, who by your opinion has not earned the money, and give it to someone that has most definitly NOT earned that money.
You're simply taking money from someone who may or may not have earned that money and giving it to someone that has beyond a shadow of a doubt not earned that money.
Its arbitrarily determining what a job is or isn't worth.
If a company(or executives of a company) are unable to determine what a fair wage is for a job they offer, who is the government to do it? Why would the government be in any way qualified to determine that?
The government can say "you may not pay anyone less than X",
they shouldn't say "if someone is doing Y, you must pay them at least X, and if someone else is doing 3Y you cannot pay them more than 3X"
In case you want it spelled out. I don't mind (overly) a payment of something like 10 times the average frontline salary, that is still a more than comfortable salary. What i do mind is the Victorian level of inequality that the current pay difference fosters, and its not as if the salaries at the top of the tree are even linked to success so the "its a really hard job" excuse doesn't cut much ice with me. In an ideal world everyone would be paid the same, unfortunately greed will always get in the way of that.
Again, why is such a wide gap between the salaries an issue?
I think the real issue is that the lower salary may be too low.
If I am making 20,000 and the CEO is making 2.2 million and I want more money. The issue isn't the CEO's pay, its my pay.
Ask for the low paying guy's salary to get raised, not for the CEO's pay to get cut.
And an executive's job is still hard, just in a different way. He may not have gotten the job because he was successful, he may have inherited the ownership of the company. But to keep it he still has to work at it.
If you want equal pay for everyone, go live in North Korea or join a Commune.
This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.
Did you want to add a qualifier in there maybe?
The qualifier is already in my previous statement. Even Frazzled noticed it.
What, social justice?
How is it justice to take money from someone, who by your opinion has not earned the money, and give it to someone that has most definitly NOT earned that money.
You're simply taking money from someone who may or may not have earned that money and giving it to someone that has beyond a shadow of a doubt not earned that money.
Its arbitrarily determining what a job is or isn't worth.
If a company(or executives of a company) are unable to determine what a fair wage is for a job they offer, who is the government to do it? Why would the government be in any way qualified to determine that?
The government can say "you may not pay anyone less than X",
they shouldn't say "if someone is doing Y, you must pay them at least X, and if someone else is doing 3Y you cannot pay them more than 3X"
In case you want it spelled out. I don't mind (overly) a payment of something like 10 times the average frontline salary, that is still a more than comfortable salary. What i do mind is the Victorian level of inequality that the current pay difference fosters, and its not as if the salaries at the top of the tree are even linked to success so the "its a really hard job" excuse doesn't cut much ice with me. In an ideal world everyone would be paid the same, unfortunately greed will always get in the way of that.
Again, why is such a wide gap between the salaries an issue?
I think the real issue is that the lower salary may be too low.
If I am making 20,000 and the CEO is making 2.2 million and I want more money. The issue isn't the CEO's pay, its my pay.
Ask for the low paying guy's salary to get raised, not for the CEO's pay to get cut.
And an executive's job is still hard, just in a different way. He may not have gotten the job because he was successful, he may have inherited the ownership of the company. But to keep it he still has to work at it.
If you want equal pay for everyone, go live in North Korea or join a Commune.
I feel that no one is seriously calling for massive and direct government control over what a person may or may not earn, but they are angry over the upper percentile's gaming of the system to better benefit themselves. Their money gives them the ability and incentive to shape both policy and public opinion as they see fit. This power leads to the over representation of their wishes in the government, which is essentially bought and paid for by the rich to safeguard their interests. Whether the rich in this case are large corporations or very wealthy individuals isn't really what's being argued, simply that they skew the process in their favour at the expense of everyone else.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed, so we want to live here with a mixture. So we live with the system we have, I'm cool with it.
I'm not cool with it, I say the mixture is flawed and drifting too far in one direction. It needs redressing so as to avoid a return to indentured service to an aristocracy.
We should be working towards a better quality of life for everyone, not returning all but a tiny minority to working themselves to death for little more reward than shelter and food, we have been working away from that lifestyle since the middle ages.
Ask for the low paying guy's salary to get raised, not for the CEO's pay to get cut.
If you want equal pay for everyone, go live in North Korea or join a Commune.
Actually I am asking for both. The social injustice lies in the massively inflated salaries for people who simply don't do enough to deserve them while giving their employees a 'fair; wage which is a tiny fraction of their bonus, never mind their actual salary. You may call western society 'asperational', I call it deeply flawed and skewed in favour of those with the deepest pockets.
I would love to live in a world with truly equal pay, unfortuantely far too many people are greedy so a balanced society simply cannot exist under those conditions.
I feel that no one is seriously calling for massive and direct government control over what a person may or may not earn, but they are angry over the upper percentile's gaming of the system to better benefit themselves. Their money gives them the ability and incentive to shape both policy and public opinion as they see fit. This power leads to the over representation of their wishes in the government, which is essentially bought and paid for by the rich to safeguard their interests. Whether the rich in this case are large corporations or very wealthy individuals isn't really what's being argued, simply that they skew the process in their favour at the expense of everyone else.
But people need to realize that they trying to stop the rich from gaming the system is itself gaming the system.
The Executives have direct control over the company system. The poor have their political voting power.
If you don't like the rich buying off your politicians, elect new ones that will enforce anti-corruption legislation. Participate.
We have such low voter turnout in this country that any issue we have with our government related to corporations really can't be fully complained about. No vote, no complain.
Ask for the low paying guy's salary to get raised, not for the CEO's pay to get cut.
If you want equal pay for everyone, go live in North Korea or join a Commune.
Actually I am asking for both. The social injustice lies in the massively inflated salaries for people who simply don't do enough to deserve them while giving their employees a 'fair; wage which is a tiny fraction of their bonus, never mind their actual salary. You may call western society 'asperational', I call it deeply flawed and skewed in favour of those with the deepest pockets.
I would love to live in a world with truly equal pay, unfortuantely far too many people are greedy so a balanced society simply cannot exist under those conditions.
It's interesting peoples perception v the reality.
Sounds like this video was made by people who hate freedom.
What do you mean by this?
Freedom = Good
America = Freedom
Video was critical of america.
Therefore Video was critical of freedom
Therefore video was critical of good.
Therefore the video was, what good isn't.
What good isn't, is evil.
Hate is evil
Therefore evil is hate.
As already established, video is evil, therefore video is hate.
Video was about america, therefore video hates america.
America is freedom, therefore video hates freedom.
I feel that no one is seriously calling for massive and direct government control over what a person may or may not earn, but they are angry over the upper percentile's gaming of the system to better benefit themselves. Their money gives them the ability and incentive to shape both policy and public opinion as they see fit. This power leads to the over representation of their wishes in the government, which is essentially bought and paid for by the rich to safeguard their interests. Whether the rich in this case are large corporations or very wealthy individuals isn't really what's being argued, simply that they skew the process in their favour at the expense of everyone else.
But people need to realize that they trying to stop the rich from gaming the system is itself gaming the system.
The Executives have direct control over the company system. The poor have their political voting power.
If you don't like the rich buying off your politicians, elect new ones that will enforce anti-corruption legislation. Participate.
We have such low voter turnout in this country that any issue we have with our government related to corporations really can't be fully complained about. No vote, no complain.
The thing is that it doesn't seem to matter what the people want, the people in power still do whatever they wish. Just look at the bailout package that was rolled out in 2008. The people said no, their representatives heard this and also defeated the first attempt at passing the bill. Then the administration pulled a fast one and manipulated the representatives into voting yes for the bailout, even though their constituents resoundly said "NO." The financial institutions that benefited from the bailout and the fiscal crisis just so happened to also be the companies that supplied the personnel that staffed the upper echelons of the US treasury. If that doesn't stink of collusion then your nose must be filled with all the sand that your head is in.
They did, didn't matter. Both parties supported it, so America had no one else to vote for. That fiasco is what spurred the creation of the Tea Party. It also spurred the creation of Occupy Wall Street. both of which movements have pretty much been co-opted by the powers that be anyways.
If you don't like the rich buying off your politicians, elect new ones that will enforce anti-corruption legislation. Participate.
And what happens when those politicians are bought off just like the ones before them? "Just elect a new one" isn't a good enough answer. Especially when the rich can use the incredibly vast resources at their command to help ensure the person they want gets in.
We have such low voter turnout in this country that any issue we have with our government related to corporations really can't be fully complained about. No vote, no complain.
The whole idea of "not voting means you have no right to complain" is ridiculous. What if none of the options are simply any good? What if you live in a jurisdiction where your vote is essentially meaningless (for example, living in Alberta, if I wish to vote anything other than Conservative, I might as well piss on my ballot and call it a day)?
If we lived in a direct democracy, that argument might hold some weight, but in the system we have, not voting could mean a variety of things.
@Fafnir, actually in Canada you can refuse the ballot, which indicates that you showed up to vote but refused to do so for various reasons. My Dad had done it once or twice.
And in Australia, you're required to vote. (not sure if it's really enforced... doesn't sound like it).
So what? Gary T's point was that we (American) need to be more engaged in the political process, instead of only caring during the Presidential Elections (aka, American Idol).
Too bad that your politcal process is broken anyways. Two party system is only one more party than a one party system. And when one looks at the two choices Americans have, it sure looks indistinguishable from a one party system.
I honestly don't understand Americans or their politics.
(That won't stop me from having a strong opinion however. )
It's interesting peoples perception v the reality.
Sounds like this video was made by people who hate freedom.
What do you mean by this?
Freedom = Good
America = Freedom
Video was critical of america.
Therefore Video was critical of freedom
Therefore video was critical of good.
Therefore the video was, what good isn't.
What good isn't, is evil.
Hate is evil
Therefore evil is hate.
As already established, video is evil, therefore video is hate.
Video was about america, therefore video hates america.
America is freedom, therefore video hates freedom.
Ratbarf wrote: @Fafnir, actually in Canada you can refuse the ballot, which indicates that you showed up to vote but refused to do so for various reasons. My Dad had done it once or twice.
Which, as I noted, is no different from actually voting in Alberta.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.
Or at the very least get tax havens to move to the US itself so the money can still be lent out. Have reduced tax types of accounts that they can keep some of their money in.
That way it can still get lent out.
They can only shelter it in tax havens if you permit tax havens in the tax code.
Where will all our glorious representatives put their money then Fraz??
Not really a surprise to me (then again I really like sociology) meritocracy and the American Dream is somewhat of a myth (not to say it doesn't happen, look at Oprah), if you're born into a middle class family chances are you're going to be middle class for the rest of your life same with the
Cheesecat wrote: Not really a surprise to me (then again I really like sociology) meritocracy and the American Dream is somewhat of a myth (not to say it doesn't happen, look at Oprah), if you're born into a middle class family chances are you're going to be middle class for the rest of your life same with the
rich and poor.
I always though the American dream was to own a home have children and be able to live comfortably not get on Ophra level wealth and fame. Is become rich and famous rock stars and celebrity the new dream?
Cheesecat wrote: Not really a surprise to me (then again I really like sociology) meritocracy and the American Dream is somewhat of a myth (not to say it doesn't happen, look at Oprah), if you're born into a middle class family chances are you're going to be middle class for the rest of your life same with the
rich and poor.
I always though the American dream was to own a home have children and be able to live comfortably not get on Ophra level wealth and fame. Is become rich and famous rock stars and celebrity the new dream?
It's basically your success in life is determined by your ability and effort.
iv put damn enough effort into my success and and i comfortable with the amount i make. and come hell or high water i will make sure it stays comfortable.
iv put damn enough effort into my success and and i comfortable with the amount i make. and come hell or high water i will make sure it stays comfortable.
The thing is this is somewhat of a myth because there's more barriers than just ability and effort when it comes to social mobility, Like a son of heroin addicted prostitute who's a single mom will have lower ambitions, less knowledge and opportunities to improve himself than a son of a
high ranking CEO. In fact the son of a high ranking CEO doesn't have to be that great to be successful in life as his family has a ton of connections for solid job opportunities, his education will be paid for, he'll have access to lots of extracurricular activities, etc.
Of course its going to be hard. And if you cant pass those barriers then it wasn't meant to be. My single mother immigrated to the US with basically no money to her name, raised me and my sister and now owns her own company through her hard efforts alone.
i now work 8am to 11+pm every day to maintain this company. its bloody hard to expand any further with taxes and blah blah blah. was it hard for me to get into the business? no. am i working any less hard? hell no.
and i intend on moving the company forward so my children and there children children can have a successful life. though this is anecdotal, its not fair to hurt those that successful in life and it sure as hell is unfair to the children who could further push harder.
i mean yeah it sucks have a heiroen addict single mom but why are other people (including people who are suffering them selves) paying to help them?
edit: fundamentally i completely disagree with wealth redistribution as i was raised by the rule that you work hard so your children can succeed easier.
I have no problems with humanitarian programs to help drug addicted people get help but if people don't want to work hard then that's their problem.
i mean yeah it sucks have a heiroen addict single mom but why are other people (including people who are suffering them selves) paying to help them?
Because it's about leveling the playing field and encouraging social mobility, the rich don't need help as they already have the most political, social and economic influence.
i mean yeah it sucks have a heiroen addict single mom but why are other people (including people who are suffering them selves) paying to help them?
Because it's about leveling the playing field and encouraging social mobility, the rich don't need help as they already have the most political, social and economic influence.
Desubot wrote: Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.
if everything is supposed to be equal there is no point in succeeding as there will always be hand outs. its the just same thing over and over again.
i also don't really recall the rich asking for the same help poor people need. (mind ya i don't really run around looking)
This isn't about that everything should be equal, as there should definitely be an incentive to improve oneself and be rewarded and also that's not what social mobility is about, it's about allowing for more change in one's social postion.
Ok well that's fair enough. no one should be completely and purposefully barred and shacked to poverty/in influence? blah i cant think of words right now.
Though now the question would be how much help do they need? and at what point does it just become a free pass in life?
In case you haven't considered it, not everyone who benefits from 'handouts' is lazy. In fact, a lot of them end up having to work very hard just to get by. Some people will work incredibly hard but will never get anywhere for it.
There's no such thing as a self made man, and getting help from others does not make people any less. Hell, you wouldn't be where you are today without the job given to you by your mother. You may work very hard for what you have, and I'm in no position to deny your merit. But you got lucky, that was your free pass. Not everyone can be so lucky.
I got lucky too. My parents are financing my entire post-secondary education, and through their connections, I managed to get a great internship for 3 years in a row. I do good work, and I work hard, but there's no denying the fact that I would not be where I am now without the support of people around me. In this case, it's not the state, but I would not want the opportunities I have to be barred from someone who could be similarly talented but not as privileged.
At the very least, people should be given access to proper (post-secondary!)education so that they can at least attempt to aspire to be something.
What's more, it's not like taxing the excessively rich will hurt them. There comes a point where you simply can't reasonably spend it in a reasonable matter, it becomes nothing more than an abstract number. Put that money to use, run it through the economic system that could truly benefit from it.
also that extra money being spent by the person IS helping the economy. just putting it into the tax system just send the money else where but if you spend the money on things you need or the things you want to grow helps it grow. that's business as naive as it sounds. Buying those extra cars, home gives business to the mechanics/cleaners/realtors blahblahblahblah. but if those works just demand the money from you then those businesses cant grow as there is no business and they will just lose there jobs. its the most basic way to look at it.
and too that i agree that education is definitely one of those things everyone should have access to.
and to your last point. what is deemed excessively high? and who should make that choice?
You mentioned about the possibility of 'not working as hard' due to obstacles in your way in a previous post, while stressing how hard work gets everything. In such a conversation, laziness is bound to apply. If it makes you happy, you could replace every time I mention anything pertaining to laziness or lethargy as 'not working as hard.'
also that extra money being spent by the person IS helping the economy. just putting it into the tax system just send the money else where but if you spend the money on things you need or the things you want to grow helps it grow.
that's business as naive as it sounds. Buying those extra cars, home gives business to the mechanics/cleaners/realtors blahblahblahblah. but if those works just demand the money from you then those businesses cant grow as there is no business and they will just lose there jobs. its the most basic way to look at it.
You're missing the point here. It's not about buying and selling basic material goods. There comes a point where a single person or group of people simply cannot buy more for themselves. The expectation by American conservatives is that the rich will use their vast resources to fund businesses which will then feed the economy by paying in a downward trickle of funds. But that's not how it works, because money is moved to offshore accounts, or simply fed into gaming the markets. The goal of the excessively rich is not to help others, but to maintain and expand on their financial empires, and to do so does not always (in fact, rarely ever does) coincide with the enrichment of the lives of the lower classes.
and to your last point. what is deemed excessively high? and who should make that choice?
On a personal note, I cannot imagine why anyone would need to make more than a million dollars a year, but then again, setting and understanding the importance of those values is not my job, thankfully.
I suppose in the context of what i said it could of been taken as lazy. and i will say that handouts can cause a lack of motivation or "laziness" but no where did i say everyone that takes handouts are lazy.
its a shame really its true that money is going off shores half time but no one seems to want to fix it. but how is taxing them making it any better? one way or another by grabing them by the pants it makes them want to run away faster.
i believe first and foremost, the entire tax system needs to be fixed so that businesses have incentives to stay and invest back into the people that and the rediculuse amount of spending in government needs to be reigned in so we can invest back into the people.
Desubot wrote: I suppose in the context of what i said it could of been taken as lazy. and i will say that handouts can cause a lack of motivation or "laziness" but no where did i say everyone that takes handouts are lazy.
But far more often then not, the people receiving the handouts are not losing their motivation to work, and are already working incredibly hard for scraps. It's the extra bit that's helping them get by. The wellfare queens you see romanticized by politicians are very few and far between. What's more, the supposed handouts can be what it takes to get someone's career or business idea off the ground, and allow them to do better and more impacting work. It's a lot easier to do great things when you're not worrying about survival. We both seem to agree on some level about socially funded education.
It may be anecdotal, but the fact that my education is funded by my parents and not myself has done nothing to hamper my motivation to work for my degree.
its a shame really its true that money is going off shores half time but no one seems to want to fix it. but how is taxing them making it any better? one way or another by grabing them by the pants it makes them want to run away faster.
And people won't stop trying to game the system until you simply give it over to them wholesale,. Just because we can't make everyone follow the rules doesn't mean we should stop trying to make the rules work altogether. So if we can't stop them, we should at least try to make use of what doesn't get stashed away.
i believe first and foremost, the entire tax system needs to be fixed so that businesses have incentives to stay and invest back into the people that and the rediculuse amount of spending in government needs to be reigned in so we can invest back into the people.
And what, do you suppose, is "investing back into the people?" that's typically what taxes and government spending are supposed to do. Social programs provide jobs for people in order to get them done.
The basic idea of social services is that the taxes you pay go into financing them. They're not simple handouts or charity, they're things you paid for through taxes, albeit not directly.
It can also be said that if you cant stop them don't give up.
nor do i believe its my way or the highway. i believe enough of both is needed for a happier society.
in my opinion if you want to invest back into the people you should be able to support it directly your self without having the government mandate it directly.
companies and should be able to offer the same if not better social programs such as medical, financial, and education
and people should be able to donate the same.
in which chases they should receive a tax break because they did what the government was going to do with the money anyway. The taxes that you increase for the programs don't always go to the programs that need it and instead get rolled into other things that no one needs like expensive presidential dinners.
in ether cases it can easily be gamed and abused but at least this way i know exactly where the money goes to help.
the short of it all.
fix tax codes no matter how hard it is
let the individual figure out what they want to support.
get government spending under control because there is no way this country can pay for all the slowed amounts of things that the people want in its current condition. i will be far more open to social/financial programs if we could actually justify spending money on it.
Interesting video- I've heard it before, but the visuals sort of underline the difference. Economics isn't really my thing, so I don't have too much to contribute here. But Pediatrician, 86k? Surgeon, 145k? (Both at 1:50) lol. Maybe after Obamacare is through with them (I kid, I kid!), but both those careers should bump you up over the $200,000 mark, at least here in the northeast.
Edit- this post came off a bit callous. It's been a long week. But at least some of the numbers cited in that video were way, way off- I'm sure it doesn't have any bearing on the take-home message, but it is interesting nonetheless. Some of those salary quotes are drastically different than reported averages, and I can't help but think it's to create an 'us vs. them' mentality, where 'us' contains everyone from the gravedigger to the pediatricians, and 'them' is nothing but CEOs, Bushes, and Kerrys. But the 2%ers and the 3%ers do pretty well for themselves, too, it's just a bit harder to begrudge them, as they generally spent 10+ years in college preparing for what they do (and, at least for the medical professions often come out of school with $300,000 in debt, thereabouts).
Desubot wrote: Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.
Social Mobility is unfair? The idea that people can get out of their situation with hard work is unfair?
Also, Think about it this way, I work my ass off at school and my small 18 hour a week job. Without wealth distribution i wouldnt have been given the chance to even go to school and be stuck in a dead end job at age 18. Just because someone is given money doesn't mean that they are given a free ride to wealth. I agree that just giving money to people for not working(other then a temporary method to help people with un expected life problems). But succesful people always have help, that is a fact of life.
You see, I see it this way, people work hard, but ecause of the restrictions life has placed on them(like being born in a poor neighborhood) the work goes to waste without help.
Extra money you have left over after all your expenses have been covered (like taxes, bills, etc), does not include pension, savings or insurance.
aha... there you go!
So, next question: Is it any of your business how much "wealth" a person has?
If I was to ask someone in person then "no" it is not my business, as my parents told me it is impolite to ask how much money someone makes, but it is important to the government, sociologists, economists, etc to know.
Extra money you have left over after all your expenses have been covered (like taxes, bills, etc), does not include pension, savings or insurance.
aha... there you go!
So, next question: Is it any of your business how much "wealth" a person has?
If I was to ask someone in person then "no" it is not my business, as my parents told me it is impolite to ask how much money someone makes, but it is important to the government, sociologists, economists, etc to know.
To "know"... sure...
It's like this fake letter from Bill Gates (yes, it's fake and something you'd see on an email chail, but cool):
BILL GATES' SPEECH TOMT. WHITNEY HIGH SCHOOL in Visalia, California.
Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this!
To anyone with kids of any age, here's some advice. Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.
Rule 1: Life is not fair -- get used to it!
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping -- they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you are. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Grey Templar wrote: Not everyone has an equal chance, but that was never promised. Its just that in America you have a better chance than anywhere else.
That's completely wrong.
The US has been declining in social mobility for a century, and now performs worse than most OECD countries.
Your sentence should read "Its just that in America you have a better chance than anywhere else, unless you include all the other wealthy, developed countries, in which case you have a better chance in almost all of those."
Wealth is not a civil right and most definitely not enumerated in the Constitution...
People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...
Sure, and someone would be wrong to claim that per the constitution they have a right to wealth and a comfortable living.
But, you'll also note, there is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing that person gets to keep everything they are paid, and that no-one else can possibly recieve any of it.
As a result, it is just as wrong to claim that a person has a right to keep all of what he is paid, and government has no right to tax the wealthy more heavily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
That is also completely wrong.
"Their results show that states that have the highest government spending for programs such as Welfare and education spending have the highest levels of intergenerational mobility. They found, overall, that an 84% increase in government spending across all of the states led to a 34.6% decline in intergenerational elasticity."
Seriously, giving enough welfare that people have some control over their lives and don't have the pressure to work 60+ hours allows time to study, and it allows the accumulation of some kind of wealth, so a person isn't losing money constantly on rubbish cars and short term loans (being poor is expensive).
Wealth is not a civil right and most definitely not enumerated in the Constitution...
People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...
Sure, and someone would be wrong to claim that per the constitution they have a right to wealth and a comfortable living.
But, you'll also note, there is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing that person gets to keep everything they are paid, and that no-one else can possibly recieve any of it.
As a result, it is just as wrong to claim that a person has a right to keep all of what he is paid, and government has no right to tax the wealthy more heavily.
What are you exactly saying?
Because property (aka, wealth) gainfully earned is protected in the Bill of Rights and numerous case laws.
I mean, sure the wealthy can be taxed more at higher rate, because it's accepted. At the same time, we could go to a Flat-Tax system and it'll still be "legal" (whether it's a good idea or not, that's up to debate).
What are you really REALLY trying to say?
Let's pick on Bill Gates... a multi-billionaire. It would be legal to tax him at high rate. But, it'd be ridiculously illegal to say "hey... your first billion, that's enough... anything after that, just give it to the state".
whembly wrote: THATs theft... no matter how much you're worth.
Paying a tax, that's a civic duty. But increasing the tax rate, just so that the gubmint can redistribute wealth IS theft.
No, it isn't. Theft, by definition, has to be illegal. If a law is passed by the government of the day, it isn't theft.
This is why it's just as silly when the left wing will claim 'property is theft'. Because no, property laws are established by a democratically elected government, and if we're going to accept that anything has legitimacy then we have to accept that the laws of the government, provided they are constitutional, do.
From there, it's clear that it's a nonsense when anyone picks out one set of laws they don't like out of the whole system created by government, and declares that one bit theft. You don't get to look at the contract laws, property laws, corporation laws and all the rest that build a modern capitalist economy, and then declare the one bit you don't like, progressive income tax, to be theft.
whembly wrote: THATs theft... no matter how much you're worth.
Paying a tax, that's a civic duty. But increasing the tax rate, just so that the gubmint can redistribute wealth IS theft.
No, it isn't. Theft, by definition, has to be illegal. If a law is passed by the government of the day, it isn't theft.
This is why it's just as silly when the left wing will claim 'property is theft'. Because no, property laws are established by a democratically elected government, and if we're going to accept that anything has legitimacy then we have to accept that the laws of the government, provided they are constitutional, do.
From there, it's clear that it's a nonsense when anyone picks out one set of laws they don't like out of the whole system created by government, and declares that one bit theft. You don't get to look at the contract laws, property laws, corporation laws and all the rest that build a modern capitalist economy, and then declare the one bit you don't like, progressive income tax, to be theft.
Woah...woah.
I'm not 'splaining myself well here buddy.
Taxation to support a government and the services they provide is fine.
It's when you get into the class warfare to increase taxes just so that you can redistribute wealth is what I take umbrage from... that's all.
And really... this topic is nothing more than a bitch-fest. If we don't like the certain aspects, engage the political process.
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
Sure, and so the point is to build a system whereby everyone gets as much as possible. When that system tilts too far towards equality for all you lose the incentive to work, and well we all know how that worked out for the USSR. But when you tilt the system too far the other way you get exploitation and wealth concentrated among a very small minority, and well know how well that worked out for Victorian England.
And so the point is to find a balance. And the plain reality of the situation is that anyone who thinks the current system in the US isn't heavily tilted towards the wealthy is, to be perfectly frank, completely delusional.
This is terrible. The top 1% should feel bad about it but they are donkey-caves who move jobs offshore! Give it 20 or so years and America will be that inequal it will be like Tsarist Russia.
BryllCream wrote: Lack of available capital isn't really holding back our economy. We have a lack of demand, caused by recession and government cuts, while FTSE 100 companies have plenty of cash. Wealth is being redistributed in our economy - one shop shuts and another opens (even if it's virtual). But it's not growing, and that's not because of a lack of money to invest.
Yep, there is trillions available to invest. But when the economy is poor, there is little reason to do so (better to earn 2% and cover inflation, than build a new factory and lose 10% a year).
The point being that as the economy slowly recovers then investment opportunities will open up, and that investment will further encourage the recovery. Just as long as no-one does anything to screw up the recovery.
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
Sure, and so the point is to build a system whereby everyone gets as much as possible. When that system tilts too far towards equality for all you lose the incentive to work, and well we all know how that worked out for the USSR. But when you tilt the system too far the other way you get exploitation and wealth concentrated among a very small minority, and well know how well that worked out for Victorian England.
And so the point is to find a balance. And the plain reality of the situation is that anyone who thinks the current system in the US isn't heavily tilted towards the wealthy is, to be perfectly frank, completely delusional.
For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top 1 percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.
Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.
The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households won't pay any federal taxes.
Grey Templar wrote: Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.
"In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again."
Man I love that quote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: But, more so, something must be done to "incentivise" more private investiment for job growth... how do you do that?
-Get out of the way for one (meaning relax some regulations).
-Targeted taxs cut
Actually, private investment is one place where I'm very 'private sector knows best'. Let them invest where they perceive the best opportunities, and don't even think about telling them how to do it (especially in the US, your venture capital system is rightly the envy of the world).
When in recession, basically you just have government maintain aggregate demand through its own infrastructure projects. Build roads, rail, bridges. Revitalise port facilities. Whatever. Point being that pumps money in to the economy, and helps maintain aggregate demand to some extent. You also get the added benefit that when you've got lots of unemployed construction workers it's the cheapest time to build new facilities.
In time, as the private sector recovers and economic activity grows the private sector will begin to find more and more decent opportunities and begin to invest again. As this happens government should lay off on its stimulus spending.
Grey Templar wrote: Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.
"In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again."
Man I love that quote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: But, more so, something must be done to "incentivise" more private investiment for job growth... how do you do that?
-Get out of the way for one (meaning relax some regulations).
-Targeted taxs cut
Actually, private investment is one place where I'm very 'private sector knows best'. Let them invest where they perceive the best opportunities, and don't even think about telling them how to do it (especially in the US, your venture capital system is rightly the envy of the world).
When in recession, basically you just have government maintain aggregate demand through its own infrastructure projects. Build roads, rail, bridges. Revitalise port facilities. Whatever. Point being that pumps money in to the economy, and helps maintain aggregate demand to some extent. You also get the added benefit that when you've got lots of unemployed construction workers it's the cheapest time to build new facilities.
In time, as the private sector recovers and economic activity grows the private sector will begin to find more and more decent opportunities and begin to invest again. As this happens government should lay off on its stimulus spending.
I agree with you there buddy!
The problem now is that most investors are "sitting" on their cash... there's a distinct lack of movement on this front.
Frazzled wrote: They can only shelter it in tax havens if you permit tax havens in the tax code.
The point of many tax havens is not that its legal, but the money is hidden from detection. Overseas earnings, and cash revenues from many businesses (such as casinos) never get put through the books, but if they were allowed to accumulate in the US the tax authorities could deem revenue earned based on the wealth collected.
The bigger economies of the world fight with the little tax haven nations over this all the time.
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
You see when a rich person comes up to a poor person and says "Life is not fair -- get used to it!" he/she just comes across as a condescending ass, rich people don't get to say life's unfair as they can escape the injustices of the world whenever they go home to there big mansion with all
the latest bells and whistles. Poor people can't do that they have to spend every moment of there day dealing with wealth inequality as they scrape by to feed there kids, don't have any money invested in there kids education, don't have any money left over to fix the broken sink, etc. Also rich
people don't seem to understand that you can accomplish things and you'll get no reward in return. Besides with this "life's unfair, deal with it" mentality if that's how life's supposed to be lived then why not go back to feudal society, since asking for any sort of balance in the system is clearly
Frazzled wrote: They can only shelter it in tax havens if you permit tax havens in the tax code.
The point of many tax havens is not that its legal, but the money is hidden from detection. Overseas earnings, and cash revenues from many businesses (such as casinos) never get put through the books, but if they were allowed to accumulate in the US the tax authorities could deem revenue earned based on the wealth collected.
The bigger economies of the world fight with the little tax haven nations over this all the time.
I wonder if we'd update our tax code to regional, rather than global? That might help... a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: Goodness gracious you Americans don't pay much in taxes. My parents taxes are around 55% a year for the Federal government alone.
How you figure?
Remember, Canadian entitlements are different... ya'll have Universal Healthcare. That's a big expense.
Also, revenues are expected to top $2.7 trillion in 2013... that's a record amount.
whembly wrote: At the same time, (and the reason why I was there in the first place)... people can work hard to better themselves.
That's why I don't engage those who deride that whole "bootstrap mentality"... they just don't get it.
Thing is, it's a great thing to have a society where a person, no matter how they were born, has a good chance to pull themselves up have a comfortable middle class life, or possibly even better. The point is that you can't just pretend that such a thing exists, you have to go out and actually find out if you do.
And people do study this kind of thing, and I've already given a couple of links to studies on the subject, and can give plenty more. The plain reality is that the US simply doesn't have a society where 'bootstraps' really works anymore. The social mobility indicator (ie the number of people born in poverty who rise up through society) is lower than just about every other developed country.
In that situation, just saying 'bootstraps' just plain isn't good enough. Bringing in policies that actually return the US to having one of the best levels of social mobility in the world, actually living up to the ideal most like to pretend still exists, well that'd mean funding to level the quality of education for all kids, minimum wage, expanded college scholarship programs, and so on.
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
You see when a rich person comes up to a poor person and says "Life is not fair -- get used to it!" he/she just comes across as a condescending ass, rich people don't get to say life's unfair as they can escape the injustices of the world whenever they go home to there big mansion with all
the latest bells and whistles. Poor people can't do that they have to spend every moment of there day dealing with wealth inequality as they scrape by to feed there kids, don't have any money invested in there kids education, don't have any money left over to fix the broken sink, etc. Also rich
people don't seem to understand that you can accomplish things and you'll get no reward in return. Besides with this "life's unfair, deal with it" mentality if that's how life's supposed to be lived then why not go back to feudal society, since asking for any sort of balance in the system is clearly
too much to ask.
Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
The point is to make something of yourself! That doesn't necessarily mean, "make as much money as you can"... but, find something that you can do to be happy.
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
whembly wrote: And in Australia, you're required to vote. (not sure if it's really enforced... doesn't sound like it).
You have to turn up to vote, or face a small fine. But once you're there, you're in a little cardboard booth with a ballot and a pencil, you can scrawl whatever you want on the ballot. One year I wrote 'I'm very disappointed in all of you' because, frankly, the options we had that year were a poor crop at best, with both sides in a race to bottom on race baiting.
I might do the same in the next Federal election, because frankly they've been a terrible lot this time around.
Ratbarf wrote: Goodness gracious you Americans don't pay much in taxes. My parents taxes are around 55% a year for the Federal government alone.
Oh really?
Federal tax rates for 2013 wrote:
15% on the first $43,561 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $43,562 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $43,561 up to $87,123), +
26% on the next $47,931 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $87,123 up to $135,054), +
29% of taxable income over $135,054.
whembly wrote: And in Australia, you're required to vote. (not sure if it's really enforced... doesn't sound like it).
You have to turn up to vote, or face a small fine. But once you're there, you're in a little cardboard booth with a ballot and a pencil, you can scrawl whatever you want on the ballot. One year I wrote 'I'm very disappointed in all of you' because, frankly, the options we had that year were a poor crop at best, with both sides in a race to bottom on race baiting.
I might do the same in the next Federal election, because frankly they've been a terrible lot this time around.
Holy gak! I think I'm going to do that the next time.
Desubot wrote: Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.
if everything is supposed to be equal there is no point in succeeding as there will always be hand outs. its the just same thing over and over again.
Umm, social mobility is measured over generations. That is, 'how much of a factor is the wealth and success of the father in the wealth and success of the son?'
To the extent that you believe that the father's achievements should be the primary cause of the son's achievements, you disagree with social mobility. I refuse to believe that you, or anyone else other than European royalty, would actually believe such a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: Though now the question would be how much help do they need? and at what point does it just become a free pass in life?
No system ever proposed in any Western democratic country has ever been a free pass. Even in the Scandanavian countries, where social mobility is at its highest, there is still a massive advantage in having wealthy, successful parents (and to some extent that is how it is always going to be how it is, outside of economic advantages the positive role model of the parent is always going to be a massive factor).
Point being, we know that more even education systems (ie you get the same quality of education anywhere in country, no matter how poor your region is), and higher minimum wages increase social mobility greatly. And I refuse to believe that anyone would honestly say that a person born into a poor family ought to have a harder time . The only reason that social mobility remains low is because people simply don't understand how it actually works.
Ratbarf wrote: Goodness gracious you Americans don't pay much in taxes. My parents taxes are around 55% a year for the Federal government alone.
Oh really?
Federal tax rates for 2013 wrote:
15% on the first $43,561 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $43,562 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $43,561 up to $87,123), +
26% on the next $47,931 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $87,123 up to $135,054), +
29% of taxable income over $135,054.
It's not just income tax, there are other federal taxes as well that they have to deal with. Pretty much my dad told me that all the money he and my mother earn until about halfway through june goes to federal taxes of some sort or another.
Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
Most rich people are born into wealthy lifestyles.
The point is to make something of yourself! That doesn't necessarily mean, "make as much money as you can"... but, find something that you can do to be happy.
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
I think the poor have every right to be envious of other classes and I have nothing but respect for someone trying to make the best out of situation with so few opportunities to improve, the fact that they're bitter about this is understandable to me.
Because property (aka, wealth) gainfully earned is protected in the Bill of Rights and numerous case laws.
I mean, sure the wealthy can be taxed more at higher rate, because it's accepted. At the same time, we could go to a Flat-Tax system and it'll still be "legal" (whether it's a good idea or not, that's up to debate).
What are you really REALLY trying to say?
Let's pick on Bill Gates... a multi-billionaire. It would be legal to tax him at high rate. But, it'd be ridiculously illegal to say "hey... your first billion, that's enough... anything after that, just give it to the state".
I'm explaining that your point, that there is nothing in the constitution saying that one has a right to a 'fair' level of wealth, is true. But that the contrary is also true, there is nothing in the constitution saying wealth can't be redistributed to something more fair.
Now, whether that means that it should happen is entirely up for debate. We can observe what the population as a whole has supported in law (some level of redistribution through progressive taxation), and draw conclusions from that.
But we can't make any conclusions about what the country ought to do, in terms of the constitution, because the document is entirely silent on the matter. That's all I was saying.
Taxation to support a government and the services they provide is fine.
It's when you get into the class warfare to increase taxes just so that you can redistribute wealth is what I take umbrage from... that's all.
Yeah, but taxation to support government services, and taxation to redistribute is a distinction without meaning. What you might call redistribution someone else might call good government.
The point being there's no moral principle that defines when taxation goes from being good and proper, to being 'redistribution' or 'theft'. That's why these things get sorted out through the on-going negotiation that is democracy.
And really... this topic is nothing more than a bitch-fest. If we don't like the certain aspects, engage the political process.
Well, part of determining what we actually believe should happen is talking about what we'd like, and figuring out if that is practical or actually a good idea at all. Threads like this, in theory, should help that process.
Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
Most rich people are born into wealthy lifestyles.
Eh... I don't buy that. Even if it were true... so what? They were lucky. I consider myself lucky for even being born! (in the USofA too!).
Seriously... being alive is like the lottery itself, your life should be the "victory lap".
The point is to make something of yourself! That doesn't necessarily mean, "make as much money as you can"... but, find something that you can do to be happy.
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
I think the poor have every right to be envious of other classes and I have nothing but respect for someone trying to make the best out of situation with so few opportunities to improve, the fact that they're bitter about this is understandable to me.
Sure it's understandable, but do something about it.
Sure, the US income tax code is actually quite progressive, indeed it's a lot more progressive than countries we'd all consider much more left wing.
The problem is that it isn't the only part of society, and looking at it in isolation is a mistake. Notice how when I listed the things that need to change to improve social mobility in the US I didn't mention the tax code?
Instead look at the steady decline of minimum wage in the US (in inflation adjusted dollars it's about a half of what it once was). Look at the increasing concentration of wealth and income among the top earners, and the decline of median income in real dollars. And look at the figures on actual social mobility, come to terms with the reality that it is much harder for a person born into poverty in the US to reach a middle class or upper class position in life than in other developed countries.
Ignoring those things and believing the US is not heavily tilted towards the rich is, once again, delusional.
The problem now is that most investors are "sitting" on their cash... there's a distinct lack of movement on this front.
Not sure how we can get that moving again.
A bigger and better stimulus plan would have stopped much of the problem
But that opportunity is gone now, from here you can ensure that government spending remains constant in the short term, and otherwise just wait as things slowly get better. And while that sucks, console yourself that you're not Europe, where austerity is seeing things get worse and worse.
It's interesting peoples perception v the reality.
Sounds like this video was made by people who hate freedom.
What do you mean by this?
Freedom = Good
America = Freedom
Video was critical of america.
Therefore Video was critical of freedom
Therefore video was critical of good.
Therefore the video was, what good isn't.
What good isn't, is evil.
Hate is evil
Therefore evil is hate.
As already established, video is evil, therefore video is hate.
Video was about america, therefore video hates america.
America is freedom, therefore video hates freedom.
Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
You think the single mother working 60 hours on two gakky minimum wage jobs, who has kids to feed, a broken boiler that she can't to afford to fix because she has all these expenses and debts to pay is wondering if her if her love for biology could get her a lucrative career?
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
You think the single mother working 60 hours on two gakky minimum wage jobs, who has kids to feed, a broken boiler that she can't to afford to fix because she has all these expenses and debts to pay is wondering if her if her love for biology could get her a lucrative career?
We holy gak... you've just described my mum! (exception her career is in accounting).
whembly wrote: Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
Well, the problem is that 'earn' is not really a thing. I mean, consider a doctor. Let's even consider that doctor was born to migrant parents, but through incredible hard work he excelled in school, and studied incredibly hard, became a top ranking heart surgeon and bought his house.
I mean, no-one would claim that if anyone earned his house, it'd be that guy. But then let's consider what might happen if his family didn't migrate. If he was instead born and raised in Cambodia, where he still studied very hard (for the 7 years of school that are available) before taking a junior position in a hospital, and working so hard that eventually he was allowed to study nursing, where he studied so hard, and worked so hard that eventually he was allowed to study to be a doctor through night school. And finally achieving that dream, and becoming a heart surgeon, he finds he can command an income that's the equivalent of $20,000 USD, less than what your average working slob in the US can command for making coffee at Starbucks.
Point being, it's not just the person's hard work that determines what they earn. It is the system that we all work in that makes that person able to command their income. And while we all like to believe that the nice paycheque we earn is due to our inherent awesomeness, it's all a lot more complicated than that,
(actual numbers made up, by the way. I have no idea what Cambodian heart surgeons or StarBucks employees earn. Point being that you get paid a lot more to do a job in a developed country that you do for doing the exact same job in the third world. I do know that StarBucks coffee sucks, though.)
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
Absolutely agree. In fact, you know what would be nice? If the poor person could accept that earning just $25,000 a year still means he is much better off than most of the world, and at the same time the rich person could realise that no, seriously, he doesn't actually need a third maid, and carrying a little more of a tax burden in order to fully fund equality in schools across the country would be really nice.
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
You think the single mother working 60 hours on two gakky minimum wage jobs, who has kids to feed, a broken boiler that she can't to afford to fix because she has all these expenses and debts to pay is wondering if her if her love for biology could get her a lucrative career?
We holy gak... you've just described my mum! (exception her career is in accounting).
And she's fething successful now.
Well, I'm glad to hear the good news but not every poor person get's that lucky plus even if in my hypothetical the mother does go to university she still isn't guaranteed she'll make it all the way through or even have a stable career after that (she lacks a lot of connections with the scientific
community), plus she's taking a major risk that could create even bigger debt.
If you just increase taxes on the rich, they'll just put their money in off-shore tax free havens or leave the country. The money will then leave the USA, which is not good.
If you lower taxes on the rich, they'll probably just hoard it. Seriously, what are you ever going to do with one billion dollars sitting in your bank account. They're never ever going to spend it all.
So keep taxes on the rich as they are. Realistically only bad stuff will happen if you increase taxes or nothing will happen if you lower taxes save less government revenue, which is bad for everyone.
For rest of the people.
You really need to do something about their wealth, since they're the largest population group. They're the ones putting money into the economy, not the wealthy! They're the people who demand the majority of products. With such an economically weak group of people, it's no wonder that your economy is in the dumps!
whembly wrote: Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
Well, the problem is that 'earn' is not really a thing. I mean, consider a doctor. Let's even consider that doctor was born to migrant parents, but through incredible hard work he excelled in school, and studied incredibly hard, became a top ranking heart surgeon and bought his house.
I mean, no-one would claim that if anyone earned his house, it'd be that guy. But then let's consider what might happen if his family didn't migrate. If he was instead born and raised in Cambodia, where he still studied very hard (for the 7 years of school that are available) before taking a junior position in a hospital, and working so hard that eventually he was allowed to study nursing, where he studied so hard, and worked so hard that eventually he was allowed to study to be a doctor through night school. And finally achieving that dream, and becoming a heart surgeon, he finds he can command an income that's the equivalent of $20,000 USD, less than what your average working slob in the US can command for making coffee at Starbucks.
Point being, it's not just the person's hard work that determines what they earn. It is the system that we all work in that makes that person able to command their income. And while we all like to believe that the nice paycheque we earn is due to our inherent awesomeness, it's all a lot more complicated than that,
(actual numbers made up, by the way. I have no idea what Cambodian heart surgeons or StarBucks employees earn. Point being that you get paid a lot more to do a job in a developed country that you do for doing the exact same job in the third world. I do know that StarBucks coffee sucks, though.)
Er... what's wrong with the system again? o.O
Let me say, we "have it good" here.
*shrugs* maybe 'cuz I'm exhausted and slightly buzzed on Macallen now... dunno what we're even discussing now.
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
Absolutely agree. In fact, you know what would be nice? If the poor person could accept that earning just $25,000 a year still means he is much better off than most of the world, and at the same time the rich person could realise that no, seriously, he doesn't actually need a third maid, and carrying a little more of a tax burden in order to fully fund equality in schools across the country would be really nice.
Probably not going to happen, though
Well... sure. Why have a maid at all? Unless they look like this:
If you just increase taxes on the rich, they'll just put their money in off-shore tax free havens or leave the country. The money will then leave the USA, which is not good.
If you lower taxes on the rich, they'll probably just hoard it. Seriously, what are you ever going to do with one billion dollars sitting in your bank account. They're never ever going to spend it all.
So keep taxes on the rich as they are. Realistically only bad stuff will happen if you increase taxes or nothing will happen if you lower taxes save less government revenue, which is bad for everyone.
For rest of the people.
You really need to do something about their wealth, since they're the largest population group. They're the ones putting money into the economy, not the wealthy! They're the people who demand the majority of products. With such an economically weak group of people, it's no wonder that your economy is in the dumps!
How 'bout this: Tax the super rich foundations as income.
The Ivy League school's foundations are ginormous.
Or... just fething redefine "income" as any new money.
Oh, and change the US tax code from Global to Regional... that'll repatriate money back in the states.
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
You think the single mother working 60 hours on two gakky minimum wage jobs, who has kids to feed, a broken boiler that she can't to afford to fix because she has all these expenses and debts to pay is wondering if her if her love for biology could get her a lucrative career?
We holy gak... you've just described my mum! (exception her career is in accounting).
And she's fething successful now.
Well, I'm glad to hear the good news but not every poor person get's that lucky plus even if in my hypothetical the mother does go to university she still isn't guaranteed she'll make it all the way through or even have a stable career after that (she lacks a lot of connections with the scientific
community), plus she's taking a major risk that could create even bigger debt.
Desubot wrote: Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.
if everything is supposed to be equal there is no point in succeeding as there will always be hand outs. its the just same thing over and over again.
Umm, social mobility is measured over generations. That is, 'how much of a factor is the wealth and success of the father in the wealth and success of the son?'
No i don't believable that the primary cause of a son's achievement is caused by the fathers wealth. what i do believe is that the fathers success in life should increases the odds (not free pass) for the son to succeed is this not fair?
why should my children have the best in life? the best education the best medical care?
Ratbarf wrote: It's not just income tax, there are other federal taxes as well that they have to deal with. Pretty much my dad told me that all the money he and my mother earn until about halfway through june goes to federal taxes of some sort or another.
Such as? Property taxes are local. Sale taxes are never accounted in the evaluation of the total amount of taxes paid in a year, because everyone include them in the good's prices. Business taxes are, well, business taxes, and don't make up for much anywho.
Here, have a look :
Tax in Canada: an overview wrote: Taxation is a vast and complex subject, but it is also one of the most important aspects of life in your new country of which you need to be aware. This article aims to provide a general overview on the tax system in Canada.
Who handles tax in Canada? The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is responsible for handling taxation issues for individuals, families, businesses, employers, not-for-profit groups, non-residents and visitors in Canada. Québec, however, has its own income tax system, separate to that of the CRA, which is administered by the Revenu Québec.
Income tax The federal government and provincial governments all charge a personal income tax in Canada and, as in most countries, taxes vary in relation to the size of a person’s income. Federal government taxes are, in general, a lot higher than what the smaller, provincial governments collect.
You may opt to defer a portion of your personal income tax to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and/or tax sheltered savings accounts in order to save for your retirement. If you’re paying income tax you must file a return with the CRA (or Revenu Québec) at the end of each tax year.
Current federal income tax rates in Canada:
15% on the first $40,970 of taxable income 22% on the next $40,971 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452) 26% on the next $45,080 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,941 and $127,021 29% on taxable income over $127,021 Sales tax The Canadian federal government levies a 5% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on most goods and services sold or provided in Canada. General groceries and medication drugs are ‘zero-rated’ and therefore taxable at 0%.
All the provincial governments (except Alberta) also charge a Provincial Sales Tax (PST). Harmonized Sales Tax combines GST and PST and is charged in most provinces.
Corporate tax Canadian businesses must pay tax on capital and profit income, although corporate tax makes up a small portion of tax revenue in total. GST registration is compulsory for all businesses in Canada.
Property tax Personal property tax in Canada is also known as millage tax or mill levy. This tax is based on the value of the property and on the property tax rate, both of which are determined by local authorities.
On top of this you have excise taxes on certain goods, such as cigarettes and alcool. You have estate taxes, but that's something that happens once or twice a lifetime, and international commerce taxes.
Anyway, another interesting graph to show you how average our taxation rate is compared to the rest of the world :
First percentage is for a single person with no child, second is for a married person with two children.
Australia 28.3% 16.0% Korea 17.3% 15.2% Austria 47.4% 35.5% Luxembourg 35.3% 12.2% Belgium 55.4% 40.3% Mexico 18.2% 18.2% Canada 31.6% 21.5% Netherlands 38.6% 29.1% Czech Republic 43.8% 27.1% New Zealand 20.5% 14.5% Denmark 41.4% 29.6% Norway 37.3% 29.6% Finland 44.6% 38.4% Poland 43.6% 42.1% France 50.1% 41.7% Portugal 36.2% 26.6% Germany 51.8% 35.7% Slovakia 38.3% 23.2% Greece 38.8% 39.2% Spain 39.0% 33.4% Hungary 50.5% 39.9% Sweden 47.9% 42.4% Iceland 29.0% 11.0% Switzerland 29.5% 18.6% Ireland 25.7% 8.1% Turkey 42.7% 42.7% Italy 45.4% 35.2% United Kingdom 33.5% 27.1% Japan 27.7% 24.9% United States 29.1% 11.9% Source: OECD, 2005 data [2]
If you just increase taxes on the rich, they'll just put their money in off-shore tax free havens or leave the country. The money will then leave the USA, which is not good.
If you lower taxes on the rich, they'll probably just hoard it. Seriously, what are you ever going to do with one billion dollars sitting in your bank account. They're never ever going to spend it all.
So keep taxes on the rich as they are. Realistically only bad stuff will happen if you increase taxes or nothing will happen if you lower taxes save less government revenue, which is bad for everyone.
Ah, the problem there is you've believed the 'aargh there's change something bad will happen' people, who inevitably shout dire consequences everytime something changes, or a change is proposed. What's weird is that these people seem to pay no attention to the actual real world, and suffer no accountability despite the fact that being wrong is practically their profession.
Thing is, the idea that money can just be shifted off-shore is tax rates go up simply isn't true. There are controls on that now, not perfect controls but certainly something that it is a challenge, and an expense, to get around. And there are very good reasons to have money domestically (despite the internet noise, the US is still an excellent place to invest in new businesses and make money, I mean, ever noticed where most of the major internet companies were founded?). While higher taxes on the rich give them greater temptation to move money off-shore, it's a game played on the margins - a 1% tax hike might tip 3 multi-millionaires into shifting everything to the Cayman Islands. Rates would have to get a hell of a lot higher before you lost more money than you gained. Like rates of probably 60 or 70%.
Nor, for that matter, do the rich just hoard all their money if taxes are lower. Why would they even do that? Other than spite against the peasants, what would be in it for them? While the economic stimulus of tax cuts on the rich are lower than tax cuts on the wealthy, it doesn't mean there is no stimulus at all.
Point being, you somehow argued yourself into believing that somehow, for some reason, that right now whatever the taxes in the US are must be the absolute optimum position. But you've had multiple reforms of your tax code in the last two decades, why is now, and not any of those other positions, the optimum set of tax rates?
Absolutely agree. In fact, you know what would be nice? If the poor person could accept that earning just $25,000 a year still means he is much better off than most of the world, and at the same time the rich person could realise that no, seriously, he doesn't actually need a third maid, and carrying a little more of a tax burden in order to fully fund equality in schools across the country would be really nice.
Probably not going to happen, though
I would settle for an acknowledgment of mutual need and grudging respect.
whembly wrote: Er... what's wrong with the system again? o.O
Let me say, we "have it good" here.
*shrugs* maybe 'cuz I'm exhausted and slightly buzzed on Macallen now... dunno what we're even discussing now.
Nothing is massively wrong with the system, and yeah, across the board, relative to elsewhere in the world you've got it good.
But the point is that in putting too much emphasis on the word 'earned' we give a pay cheque a meaning that doesn't actually make sense, if you look at how money is 'earned' in different places around the world.
Once we realise that, then concepts like 'redistribution is theft' stop making any sense at all. Instead we start to see things in terms of what system is best overall, what system balances equality against personal incentive to get as much as possible of each?
Well... sure. Why have a maid at all? Unless they look like this:
Spoiler:
Is it possible to have three of those? Because if it is I'm going to figure out how to get rich.
How 'bout this: Tax the super rich foundations as income.
The Ivy League school's foundations are ginormous.
A mate is a stockbroker, and he tells a story about how to tell when the stock market is about to crash. See, every so often Harvard will look at the size of its investment portfolio and realise the revenue from that alone can pay for the school's running, and they'll put out a story saying they're not going to charge anymore, and just select candidates based on merit.
And when you read that story, get the hell out of the market. Because within like three to six months of Harvard saying that, the market will crash and Harvard will lose like $3 billion. Only to steadily build it up again, realise their portfolio is large enough to pay for the school's running, and...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: No i don't believable that the primary cause of a son's achievement is caused by the fathers wealth. what i do believe is that the fathers success in life should increases the odds (not free pass) for the son to succeed is this not fair?
why should my children have the best in life? the best education the best medical care?
Sure, your children should have the best you can offer. You seem to be thinking of this as some kind of zero sum game, that if social mobility is achieved you have to drop down the totem pole so someone else can also succeed.
But I'll ask you this, if a hard working, smart kid is born to poor parents, why should he have a harder time becoming a successful professional, than a kid born to middle class or wealthy parents? Why should he have to go to poorer schools, and get less time and guidance from his parents because they're both working 60 hours a week in gak jobs just to get the bills paid?
And isn't it in everyone's best interest that the doctors in the next generation are drawn from the smartest and most hard working people? And not just the smartest and most hard working people who happened to be born to parents with a certain level of wealth? Wouldn't that mean the pool of possible people who could become doctors increases, meaning we can be more selective in who becomes doctors, meaning we get better doctors and therefore better medical care?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: I would settle for an acknowledgment of mutual need and grudging respect.
The reason why most of the major internet companies were founded there is because of good infrastructure and good people there. If I had a group of good people around me to start a business, I'm not going to jump to another country because it's supposedly better over there. There'd be too many risks. If people did move countries to start business up, Singapore would have thousands of new business because it's the easiest country to do business in.
If you lower taxes on the rich, what do you think that they're going to do with the rest of the money? They've already got millions that they're never going to spend, and it's not like that they're going to invest it directly into the economy.
What controls are there against shipping money to tax havens?
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: The reason why most of the major internet companies were founded there is because of good infrastructure and good people there. If I had a group of good people around me to start a business, I'm not going to jump to another country because it's supposedly better over there. There'd be too many risks. If people did move countries to start business up, Singapore would have thousands of new business because it's the easiest country to do business in.
Exactly, which is why fears that high taxes will just shift money to another country just isn't valid, because there are so many other factors to account for.
At the end of the day, while higher taxes on the rich might give some encouragement to move money overseas, not that much actually moves because of those reasons.
If you lower taxes on the rich, what do you think that they're going to do with the rest of the money? They've already got millions that they're never going to spend, and it's not like that they're going to invest it directly into the economy.
The idea is that they will have more money to do what they were already doing with their spare cash - investing it, or earning interest on deposits with a bank (who then lends that money to someone who does invest it). Between putting money under bed/burning it all in a wild display to terrify the neighbours and investing it to earn interest/profits, we know what most people pick.
Of course, that system doesn't work very well in the middle of recession.
What controls are there against shipping money to tax havens?
Shifting income to offshore accounts is actually illegal in many cases. In other cases you get taxed on it at such high rates you might as well just pay tax in the home country.
That changes with countries where there is some kind of deal in place, through trade agreements. But those countries aren't tax havens.
Did you read the rest of my post?
Yes. Do I have to comment on everything? I think I post enough here already
Desubot wrote: No i don't believable that the primary cause of a son's achievement is caused by the fathers wealth. what i do believe is that the fathers success in life should increases the odds (not free pass) for the son to succeed is this not fair?
why shouldnt my children have the best in life? the best education the best medical care?
Sure, your children should have the best you can offer. You seem to be thinking of this as some kind of zero sum game, that if social mobility is achieved you have to drop down the totem pole so someone else can also succeed.
But I'll ask you this, if a hard working, smart kid is born to poor parents, why should he have a harder time becoming a successful professional, than a kid born to middle class or wealthy parents? Why should he have to go to poorer schools, and get less time and guidance from his parents because they're both working 60 hours a week in gak jobs just to get the bills paid?
And isn't it in everyone's best interest that the doctors in the next generation are drawn from the smartest and most hard working people? And not just the smartest and most hard working people who happened to be born to parents with a certain level of wealth? Wouldn't that mean the pool of possible people who could become doctors increases, meaning we can be more selective in who becomes doctors, meaning we get better doctors and therefore better medical care?
too keep it short, how much money would it take to pay for this one kid. and how many others are there like him. then how many people can possibility pay for such things.
I believable everyone has to rights to a great education i believe i said that in a previous comment. it is entirely possible to do but realistically how much money would it cost, and how much money will you be taking from rich people to get these programs done, considering you really cant tax middle class people as they also need that money.
anyone can say hey we should do this because its the right thing to do but have you ever conceived of the actual budget required? (basically our government cant even control our military budget properly let alone any other social programs. and god help us with obama care and the price tag for that. (and that adds the another previous point that we need to control spending) life aint as simple as i/we want) but i would love to see some one actually make a plan that properly pays for it self.
Desubot wrote: too keep it short, how much money would it take to pay for this one kid. and how many others are there like him. then how many people can possibility pay for such things.
This one kid? There isn't one specific kid we're talking about here I mean, point is you don't know which kids are going to end up excellent achievers and which are not.
I believable everyone has to rights to a great education i believe i said that in a previous comment. it is entirely possible to do but realistically how much money would it cost, and how much money will you be taking from rich people to get these programs done, considering you really cant tax middle class people as they also need that money.
The middle class get taxed. Most tax revenue comes from the middle class (the rich pay a lot more per person, but there's a lot less of them).
And it makes zero sense to talk about the cost of the thing, as if that cost is going to be meaningfully different to what is already being paid. You already pay that cost for every middle class and rich kid in the system (not so much the rich kids, as they go private in many cases). The point is to do the reform work (remove funding from local government level) so that you pay that price for every kid, to expand the talent pool out to the whole population, so that it is truly the best reaching college and becoming doctors, scientists and engineers.
anyone can say hey we should do this because its the right thing to do but have you ever conceived of the actual budget required? (basically our government cant even control our military budget properly let alone any other social programs. and god help us with obama care and the price tag for that. (and that adds the another previous point that we need to control spending) life aint as simple as i/we want) but i would love to see some one actually make a plan that properly pays for it self.
Education doesn't pay for itself. That's not how it works, and not how it will ever work. You spend the money now, and you just accept that's the cost of having another generation of productive citizens.
Ratbarf wrote: Goodness gracious you Americans don't pay much in taxes. My parents taxes are around 55% a year for the Federal government alone.
No, we pay relativly normal taxes. You guys pay absurdly high taxes. And Europes even higher. High vs low, all from your point of view.
So somewhere along the lines of the lower end of the developed world?
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Ratbarf wrote: It's not just income tax, there are other federal taxes as well that they have to deal with. Pretty much my dad told me that all the money he and my mother earn until about halfway through june goes to federal taxes of some sort or another.
Such as? Property taxes are local. Sale taxes are never accounted in the evaluation of the total amount of taxes paid in a year, because everyone include them in the good's prices. Business taxes are, well, business taxes, and don't make up for much anywho.
Here, have a look :
Tax in Canada: an overview wrote:
Taxation is a vast and complex subject, but it is also one of the most important aspects of life in your new country of which you need to be aware. This article aims to provide a general overview on the tax system in Canada.
Who handles tax in Canada?
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is responsible for handling taxation issues for individuals, families, businesses, employers, not-for-profit groups, non-residents and visitors in Canada. Québec, however, has its own income tax system, separate to that of the CRA, which is administered by the Revenu Québec.
Income tax
The federal government and provincial governments all charge a personal income tax in Canada and, as in most countries, taxes vary in relation to the size of a person’s income. Federal government taxes are, in general, a lot higher than what the smaller, provincial governments collect.
You may opt to defer a portion of your personal income tax to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and/or tax sheltered savings accounts in order to save for your retirement. If you’re paying income tax you must file a return with the CRA (or Revenu Québec) at the end of each tax year.
Current federal income tax rates in Canada:
15% on the first $40,970 of taxable income
22% on the next $40,971 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452)
26% on the next $45,080 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,941 and $127,021
29% on taxable income over $127,021
Sales tax
The Canadian federal government levies a 5% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on most goods and services sold or provided in Canada. General groceries and medication drugs are ‘zero-rated’ and therefore taxable at 0%.
All the provincial governments (except Alberta) also charge a Provincial Sales Tax (PST). Harmonized Sales Tax combines GST and PST and is charged in most provinces.
Corporate tax
Canadian businesses must pay tax on capital and profit income, although corporate tax makes up a small portion of tax revenue in total. GST registration is compulsory for all businesses in Canada.
Property tax
Personal property tax in Canada is also known as millage tax or mill levy. This tax is based on the value of the property and on the property tax rate, both of which are determined by local authorities.
On top of this you have excise taxes on certain goods, such as cigarettes and alcool. You have estate taxes, but that's something that happens once or twice a lifetime, and international commerce taxes.
Anyway, another interesting graph to show you how average our taxation rate is compared to the rest of the world :
First percentage is for a single person with no child, second is for a married person with two children.
Australia 28.3% 16.0%
Korea 17.3% 15.2%
Austria 47.4% 35.5%
Luxembourg 35.3% 12.2%
Belgium 55.4% 40.3%
Mexico 18.2% 18.2%
Canada 31.6% 21.5%
Netherlands 38.6% 29.1%
Czech Republic 43.8% 27.1%
New Zealand 20.5% 14.5%
Denmark 41.4% 29.6%
Norway 37.3% 29.6%
Finland 44.6% 38.4%
Poland 43.6% 42.1%
France 50.1% 41.7%
Portugal 36.2% 26.6%
Germany 51.8% 35.7%
Slovakia 38.3% 23.2%
Greece 38.8% 39.2%
Spain 39.0% 33.4%
Hungary 50.5% 39.9%
Sweden 47.9% 42.4%
Iceland 29.0% 11.0%
Switzerland 29.5% 18.6%
Ireland 25.7% 8.1%
Turkey 42.7% 42.7%
Italy 45.4% 35.2%
United Kingdom 33.5% 27.1%
Japan 27.7% 24.9%
United States 29.1% 11.9%
Source: OECD, 2005 data [2]
I honestly don't know the details of how his taxes are broken down, only what he tells me.
Desubot wrote: too keep it short, how much money would it take to pay for this one kid. and how many others are there like him. then how many people can possibility pay for such things.
This one kid? There isn't one specific kid we're talking about here I mean, point is you don't know which kids are going to end up excellent achievers and which are not.
I believable everyone has to rights to a great education i believe i said that in a previous comment. it is entirely possible to do but realistically how much money would it cost, and how much money will you be taking from rich people to get these programs done, considering you really cant tax middle class people as they also need that money.
The middle class get taxed. Most tax revenue comes from the middle class (the rich pay a lot more per person, but there's a lot less of them).
And it makes zero sense to talk about the cost of the thing, as if that cost is going to be meaningfully different to what is already being paid. You already pay that cost for every middle class and rich kid in the system (not so much the rich kids, as they go private in many cases). The point is to do the reform work (remove funding from local government level) so that you pay that price for every kid, to expand the talent pool out to the whole population, so that it is truly the best reaching college and becoming doctors, scientists and engineers.
anyone can say hey we should do this because its the right thing to do but have you ever conceived of the actual budget required? (basically our government cant even control our military budget properly let alone any other social programs. and god help us with obama care and the price tag for that. (and that adds the another previous point that we need to control spending) life aint as simple as i/we want) but i would love to see some one actually make a plan that properly pays for it self.
Education doesn't pay for itself. That's not how it works, and not how it will ever work. You spend the money now, and you just accept that's the cost of having another generation of productive citizens.
Its still not what im saying at all. and your not even answering the question.
how much money does it take to send a child in a dire situation to go through school.
of that now many dire children are out there? because if you let one go you have to let all of them go to school.
of that total amount that it requires how many people are eligible to be taxed for it (middle class? rich? supper rich)?
if its a reasonable amount that allows them to also pay for there own children to go to school then who cares, its all good. otherwise we have a problem.
that plus you have to also add in other social programs that are exactly the same. (food stamps and such)
now suddenly some of these middle class people WILL start dropping into lower middle class and that is dropping down a totem pole. this is not the case currently because we are just borrowing money from china to sustain these programs and thats putting us in dept.
i would love to see some one answer the actual question.
So... a counter point about social mobility by none other than Thomas Sowell:
Economic Mobility Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers.
Yet, in utter disregard of such plain facts, so-called "social scientists" do studies which conclude that America is no longer a land of opportunity, and that upward mobility is a "myth." Even when these studies have lots of numbers in tables and equations that mimic the appearance of science, too often their conclusions depend on wholly arbitrary assumptions.
Even people regarded as serious academic scholars often measure social mobility by how many people from families in the lower part of the income distribution end up in higher income brackets. But social mobility -- the opportunity to move up -- cannot be measured solely by how much movement takes place.
Opportunity is just one factor in economic advancement. How well a given individual or group takes advantage of existing opportunities is another. Only by implicitly (and arbitrarily) assuming that a failure to rise must be due to society's barriers can we say that American society no longer has opportunity for upward social mobility.
The very same attitudes and behavior that landed a father in a lower income bracket can land the son in that same bracket. But someone with a different set of attitudes and behavior may rise dramatically in the same society. Sometimes even a member of the same family may rise while a sibling stagnates or falls by the wayside.
Ironically, many of the very people who are promoting the idea that the "unfairness" of American society is the reason why some individuals and groups are not advancing are themselves a big part of the reason for the stagnation that occurs.
The welfare state promoted by those who insist that it is society that is keeping some people down makes it unnecessary for many low-income people to exert themselves -- and therefore makes it unnecessary for them to develop their own potential to the fullest.
The multiculturalist dogma that says one culture is just as good as another paints people into the cultural corner where they happened to have been born, even if other cultures around them have features that offer better prospects of rising.
Just speaking standard English in an English-speaking country can improve the odds of rising. But multiculturalists' celebration of foreign languages or ethnic dialects, and of counterproductive cultural patterns exemplified by such things as gangsta rap, can promote the very social stagnation that they blame on "society."
Meanwhile, Asian immigrants or refugees who arrive here are not handicapped or distracted by a counterproductive social vision full of envy, resentment and paranoia, and so can rise in the very same society where opportunity is said to be absent.
Those "social scientists," journalists and others who are committed to the theory that social barriers keep people down often cite statistics showing that the top income brackets receive a disproportionate and growing share of the country's income.
But the very opposite conclusion arises in studies that follow actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time, most of whom move up across the various income brackets with the passing years. Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.
People who were initially in the bottom 20 percent in income have had the highest rate of increase in their incomes, while those who were initially in the top 20 percent have had the lowest. This is the direct opposite of the pattern found when following income brackets over time, rather than following individual people.
Most of the media publicize what is happening to the statistical brackets -- especially that "top one percent" -- rather than what is happening to individual people.
We should be concerned with the economic fate of flesh-and-blood human beings, not waxing indignant over the fate of abstract statistical brackets. Unless, of course, we are hustling for an expansion of the welfare state.
Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.
Yeah, a statement like that is going to require a citation. It makes the claim that someone born into poverty is more likely to find themselves earning over 200k a year than working for minimum wage at a McDonald's, and that reeks of bs to me. Economic mobility doesn't work as though on jetpacks, and I cannot think of any valid social science study that has shown it does.
Even further, that article I quoted seems to be making a case to disregard the math and statistics and instead focus on the anecdotal evidence.
EDIT: And let's not forget this little gem:
Meanwhile, Asian immigrants or refugees who arrive here are not handicapped or distracted by a counterproductive social vision full of envy, resentment and paranoia, and so can rise in the very same society where opportunity is said to be absent
That is some top tier, Grade "A" talking-out-of-one's-ass, right there.
I don't know if RealClearPolitics was holding a contest to see who could invalidate themselves the hardest and fastest, or what the prize was, but it sure seems like Thomas Sowell really wanted to win it.
Having said that, you do have a valid point Azazel (That Sowell is a blowhard)... here's the citation I was originally looking for that really breaks down why most the "Weath Inequality" arguments are generally bunk:
From the St. Louis Federal Reserve-U.S. Income Inequality: It’s Not So Bad Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau releases data on the income levels of America’s households. A comparison of the annual data over time reveals that the income of wealthier households has been growing faster than the income of poorer households—the real income of the wealthiest 5 percent of households rose by 14 percent between 1996 and 2006, while the income of the poorest 20 percent of households rose by just 6 percent.
As a result of these differences in income growth, the income of the wealthiest 5 percent of households grew from 8.1 times that of the income of the poorest 20 percent of households in 1996 to 8.7 times as great by 2006. Such figures commonly lead to the conclusion that income inequality in the United States has increased. This apparent increase in income inequality has not escaped the attention of policy makers and social activists who support public policies aimed at reducing income inequality. However, the common measures of income inequality that are derived from the census statistics exaggerate the degree of income inequality in the United States in several ways. Furthermore, although many people consider income inequality a social ill, it is important to understand that income inequality has many economic benefits and is the result of—and not a detriment to—a well-functioning economy.
An Inaccurate Picture
The Census Bureau essentially ranks all households by household income and then divides this distribution of households into quintiles. The highest-ranked household in each quintile provides the upper income limit for each quintile. Comparing changes in these upper income limits over time for different quintiles reveals that the income of wealthier households has been growing faster than the income of poorer households, thus giving the impression of an increasing “income gap” or “shrinking middle class.”
One big problem with inferring income inequality from the census income statistics is that the census statistics provide only a snapshot of income distribution in the U.S., at a single point in time. The statistics do not reflect the reality that income for many households changes over time—i.e., incomes are mobile. For most people, income increases over time as they move from their first, low-paying job in high school to a better-paying job later in their lives. Also, some people lose income over time because of business-cycle contractions, demotions, career changes, retirement, etc. The implication of changing individual incomes is that individual households do not remain in the same income quintiles over time. Thus, comparing different income quintiles over time is like comparing apples to oranges, because it means comparing incomes of different people at different stages in their earnings profile.
The U.S. Treasury released a study in November 2007 that examined income mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005. Using data from individual tax returns, the study documented the movement of households along the distribution of real income over the 10-year period. As shown in Figure 1A, the study found that nearly 58 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile (the lowest 20 percent) in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005. Similarly, nearly 50 percent of the households in the second-lowest quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005. Even a significant number of households in the third- and fourth-lowest income quintiles in 1996 moved to a higher quintile in 2005.
The Treasury study also documented falls in household income between 1996 and 2005. This is most interesting when considering the richest households. As shown in Figure 1B, more than 57 percent of the richest 1 percent of households in 1996 fell out of that category by 2005. Similarly, more than 45 percent of the households that ranked in the top 5 percent of income in 1996 fell out of that category by 2005.
Thus it is clear that over time, a significant number of households move to higher positions along the income distribution, and a significant number move to lower positions along the income distribution. Common reference to “classes” of people (e.g., the lowest 20 percent or the richest 10 percent) is quite misleading because income classes do not contain the same households and people over time.
Another problem with drawing inferences from the census statistics is that the statistics do not include the noncash resources received by lower-income households—resources transferred to the households—and the tax payments made by wealthier households to fund these transfers. Lower-income households annually receive tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for housing, food and medical care. None of these are considered income by the Census Bureau. Thus the resources available to lower-income households are actually greater than is suggested by the income of those households as reported in the census data.
At the same time, these noncash payments to lower-income households are funded with taxpayer dollars—mostly from wealthier households, since they pay a majority of overall taxes. One research report estimates that the share of total income earned by the lowest income quintile increases roughly 50 percent—whereas the share of total income earned by the highest income quintile drops roughly 7 percent—when transfer payments and taxes are considered.
The census statistics also do not account for the fact that the households in each quintile contain different numbers of people; it is differences in income across people, rather than differences in income by household, that provide a clearer measure of inequality. Lower-income households tend to consist of single people with low earnings, whereas higher-income households tend to include married couples with multiple earners. The fact that lower-income households have fewer people than higher-income households skews the income distribution by person. When considering household size along with transfers received and taxes paid, the income share of the lowest quintile nearly triples and the income share of the highest quintile falls by 25 percent.
Is Policy Needed?
Income inequality will still exist even if the income inequality statistics are adjusted to account for the aforementioned factors. Given the negative attention income inequality receives in the media, it is important to ask whether reducing income inequality is a worthy goal of public policy. It is important to understand that income inequality is a byproduct of a well-functioning capitalist economy. Individuals’ earnings are directly related to their productivity. Wealthy people are not wealthy because they have more money; it is because they have greater productivity. Different incomes reflect different productivity levels.
The unconstrained opportunity for individuals to create value for society—and the fact that their income reflects the value they create—encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. Economic research has documented a positive correlation between entrepreneurship/innovation and overall economic growth. A wary eye should be cast on policies that aim to shrink the income distribution by redistributing income from the more productive to the less productive simply for the sake of “fairness.” Redistribution of wealth increases the costs of entrepreneurship and innovation, with the result being lower overall economic growth for everyone.
Poverty and income inequality are related, but only the former deserves a policy-based response. Sound economic policy to reduce poverty would lift people out of poverty (increase their productivity) while not reducing the well-being of wealthier individuals. Tools to implement such a policy include investments in education and job training.
Income inequality should not be vilified, and public policy should encourage people to move up the income distribution and not penalize them for having already done so.
Its still not what im saying at all. and your not even answering the question.
how much money does it take to send a child in a dire situation to go through school.
of that now many dire children are out there? because if you let one go you have to let all of them go to school.
of that total amount that it requires how many people are eligible to be taxed for it (middle class? rich? supper rich)?
if its a reasonable amount that allows them to also pay for there own children to go to school then who cares, its all good. otherwise we have a problem.
that plus you have to also add in other social programs that are exactly the same. (food stamps and such)
now suddenly some of these middle class people WILL start dropping into lower middle class and that is dropping down a totem pole. this is not the case currently because we are just borrowing money from china to sustain these programs and thats putting us in dept.
i would love to see some one answer the actual question.
The question you should be asking is why are so many children in such a dire situation in the first place!
Honestly, I don't know why, in this day and age, people are so unreasonably scared of socialist policies (rhetorical, I know why, but the reason is still unreasonable). Much of our society is built upon socialist policies, many of the institutions we rely on every single day.
It's not a matter of giving up personal freedoms, nor is it about going full communist. We give some of our responsibility to the state so that we can focus on what's really important.
For example, up here in Canada, with healthcare covered by our basic taxes, I never have to worry about getting sick or injured. I can focus more on what I really want to do with my life and my funds that I do have after my taxes, even if they may be higher than in America. If I were to get in an accident that interfered with my ability to do my work, I know that, even if I may have to wait in line a little longer, I'll get the service I need.
I feel that we can make a similar concession for things like education. I never intend on having children (I absolutely hate the little sociopaths), but I believe that regardless of that, everyone deserves the opportunity to do something worthwhile with their lives, and coming from a poor family should not exclude them from that. Sure, my taxes may not go to pay for my children (especially assuming I never have any, as I intend), but at the end of the road, it'll be worth it when the educated people are there to support the economy and medical care that I rely on in my old age, even if they aren't my direct descendents.
Fafnir wrote:Honestly, I don't know why, in this day and age, people are so unreasonably scared of socialist policies (rhetorical, I know why, but the reason is still unreasonable). Much of our society is built upon socialist policies, many of the institutions we rely on every single day.
It's not a matter of giving up personal freedoms, nor is it about going full communist. We give some of our responsibility to the state so that we can focus on what's really important.
For example, up here in Canada, with healthcare covered by our basic taxes, I never have to worry about getting sick or injured. I can focus more on what I really want to do with my life and my funds that I do have after my taxes, even if they may be higher than in America. If I were to get in an accident that interfered with my ability to do my work, I know that, even if I may have to wait in line a little longer, I'll get the service I need.
I feel that we can make a similar concession for things like education. I never intend on having children (I absolutely hate the little sociopaths), but I believe that regardless of that, everyone deserves the opportunity to do something worthwhile with their lives, and coming from a poor family should not exclude them from that. Sure, my taxes may not go to pay for my children (especially assuming I never have any, as I intend), but at the end of the road, it'll be worth it when the educated people are there to support the economy and medical care that I rely on in my old age, even if they aren't my direct descendents.
I just want to point out that I think it's important to note the "little longer" delay that you speak of is not due to an inefficient or inferior system; it's because there are less people waiting; the same concept as how you'd never have to wait in line for Space Mountain if Disneyland started charging $10,000 a ticket or GTFO.
The question you should be asking is why are so many children in such a dire situation in the first place!
Its a complicated answer and there are way more than one definitive reason for it. but one of the reasons i believe it so is due to the fact that for every company that exists there are many more underlings of which wont be able to move up any further. and unless there are more businesses to allow more new higher positions opportunity will stagnate. and when one does appear its possible that it will kill another business, effectively creating more negative movement.
please feel free to tell me im wrong and why. or if you have a better reason
Fafnir wrote: Honestly, I don't know why, in this day and age, people are so unreasonably scared of socialist policies (rhetorical, I know why, but the reason is still unreasonable). Much of our society is built upon socialist policies, many of the institutions we rely on every single day.
It's not a matter of giving up personal freedoms, nor is it about going full communist. We give some of our responsibility to the state so that we can focus on what's really important.
For example, up here in Canada, with healthcare covered by our basic taxes, I never have to worry about getting sick or injured. I can focus more on what I really want to do with my life and my funds that I do have after my taxes, even if they may be higher than in America. If I were to get in an accident that interfered with my ability to do my work, I know that, even if I may have to wait in line a little longer, I'll get the service I need.
I feel that we can make a similar concession for things like education. I never intend on having children (I absolutely hate the little sociopaths), but I believe that regardless of that, everyone deserves the opportunity to do something worthwhile with their lives, and coming from a poor family should not exclude them from that. Sure, my taxes may not go to pay for my children (especially assuming I never have any, as I intend), but at the end of the road, it'll be worth it when the educated people are there to support the economy and medical care that I rely on in my old age, even if they aren't my direct descendents.
Que?
We have a hybrid system... some social programs/free markets.
It's the degree that I guess we're debating on.
I've been on record that the US needs to go to Canadian Medicare model.
And just 'cuz... Azazal... Canada ration healthcare.
Fafnir wrote: Honestly, I don't know why, in this day and age, people are so unreasonably scared of socialist policies...It's not a matter of giving up personal freedoms
EDIT: Just to be clear, I've advocated the US to move towards the Canadian Healthcare model (essentially expand Medicare to everyone). But it'll cost us.
As to a traditional "socialistic" programs, what I find funny is folk think we don't have any in the USofA.
So if someone had a massive car accident and needed a lot of surgery in order to save his life, yet this someone worked as a janitor in a high school and therefore couldn't afford it, he shouldn't get it? With socialised medicine he could still live, without it he'd need to have health insurance and then await the insurance company's response.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: So if someone had a massive car accident and needed a lot of surgery in order to save his life, yet this someone worked as a janitor in a high school and therefore couldn't afford it, he shouldn't get it? With socialised medicine he could still live, without it he'd need to have health insurance and then await the insurance company's response.
He cannot be denied the medical care. People always seem to forget that when making these arguments. And there are a ton of agencies, charities, and the like who will work with such people to aid in their medical bills, help them acquire cheaper insurance. Some states have laws in place to help provide cheap rates for the poor. Such as Texas, which has legislation passed to help those in the poverty range acquire insurance with premiums at 50% of the rate.
I honestly don't know the details of how his taxes are broken down, only what he tells me.
Then I can only tell you that he doesn't pay 55% of fed taxes alone. You live in Ontario, right? That would make an expected total amount of taxes (local, provincial and federal) around 70 to 75% of income, which is completely, entirely impossible.
I honestly don't know the details of how his taxes are broken down, only what he tells me.
Then I can only tell you that he doesn't pay 55% of fed taxes alone. You live in Ontario, right? That would make an expected total amount of taxes (local, provincial and federal) around 70 to 75% of income, which is completely, entirely impossible.
More than likely, he pays 55% total taxes.
That's about what my father pays, the 55% part. Except he's not a Canadian citizen, so he doesn't get to reap the benefits of what he pays, like the medical insurance. As soon as his work permit expires, he's moving back to the states.
Fafnir wrote: Honestly, I don't know why, in this day and age, people are so unreasonably scared of socialist policies...It's not a matter of giving up personal freedoms
A better question would be "Where did this cult of personal freedoms came from, and why did it went so out of hand that it now eclipse every other values?''
That's about what my father pays, the 55% part. Except he's not a Canadian citizen, so he doesn't get to reap the benefits of what he pays, like the medical insurance. As soon as his work permit expires, he's moving back to the states.
There are ways to get it in returns if he gets a citizenship. I know a few French peeps that went from ass-broke to fething rich overnight.
That's about what my father pays, the 55% part. Except he's not a Canadian citizen, so he doesn't get to reap the benefits of what he pays, like the medical insurance. As soon as his work permit expires, he's moving back to the states.
There are ways to get it in returns if he gets a citizenship. I know a few French peeps that went from ass-broke to fething rich overnight.
He doesn't want to. Wants to move back home. He moved up there for a relationship, and now the only reason he's staying is because he likes his company, and he's trying to get them to open an office in the states for him to run. Whether or not that happens, he'll be returning back to the US next year.
He doesn't want to. Wants to move back home. He moved up there for a relationship, and now the only reason he's staying is because he likes his company, and he's trying to get them to open an office in the states for him to run. Whether or not that happens, he'll be returning back to the US next year.
That's about what my father pays, the 55% part. Except he's not a Canadian citizen, so he doesn't get to reap the benefits of what he pays, like the medical insurance. As soon as his work permit expires, he's moving back to the states.
There are ways to get it in returns if he gets a citizenship. I know a few French peeps that went from ass-broke to fething rich overnight.
He doesn't want to. Wants to move back home. He moved up there for a relationship, and now the only reason he's staying is because he likes his company, and he's trying to get them to open an office in the states for him to run. Whether or not that happens, he'll be returning back to the US next year.
Sometimes eHarmony doesn't work out as well as the commercials.
If by relationship you mean the same thing my divorced father is going through, then I'm right there with ya buddy. Double points if he's white and she's asian. Super weird in Canada, I swear :rolleyes:
BTW this has way less to do with you d and more me commenting on my father. Alcohol.
BryllCream wrote: Lack of available capital isn't really holding back our economy. We have a lack of demand, caused by recession and government cuts, while FTSE 100 companies have plenty of cash. Wealth is being redistributed in our economy - one shop shuts and another opens (even if it's virtual). But it's not growing, and that's not because of a lack of money to invest.
Yep, there is trillions available to invest. But when the economy is poor, there is little reason to do so (better to earn 2% and cover inflation, than build a new factory and lose 10% a year).
The point being that as the economy slowly recovers then investment opportunities will open up, and that investment will further encourage the recovery. Just as long as no-one does anything to screw up the recovery.
Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: So if someone had a massive car accident and needed a lot of surgery in order to save his life, yet this someone worked as a janitor in a high school and therefore couldn't afford it, he shouldn't get it? With socialised medicine he could still live, without it he'd need to have health insurance and then await the insurance company's response.
Well, he'd be a government employee, so the chances he wouldn't have healthcare are pretty slim.
Also, who caused the accident? If it's not our janitor friend, the responsible party is also responsible for the medical bills. Provided they have automobile insurance and aren't, say, illegal entrants to the country driving without any sort of license or financial protection from liability.
And no, by the way, there's no "waiting for the insurance company's response" before live-saving surgery is performed.
Desubot wrote: Its still not what im saying at all. and your not even answering the question.
I've been trying to answer your question, your question has been vague, poorly worded and I suspect drifting from post to post (perhaps without you realising it).
how much money does it take to send a child in a dire situation to go through school.
The same as any other kid. And they're already going to school, it's just that right now the school they go gets noticeably less funding per kid, because the district they're in is poorer, and therefore commands less of a tax base.
of that now many dire children are out there? because if you let one go you have to let all of them go to school.
I think you've kind of invented a debate in your head, that isn't the one we're having here. 'Dire' isn't the issue. Lower class is the issue.
if its a reasonable amount that allows them to also pay for there own children to go to school then who cares, its all good. otherwise we have a problem.
They don't 'pay for their own kids to go to school'. School is paid almost entirely by the state (there's a small materials fee, but it's immaterial to the cost of the teacher, classrom etc). Even in private schools there's government subsidies.
The point is that we as a society do this because that's the only way to produce another generation of intelligent, capable human beings who can continue and advance our society.
now suddenly some of these middle class people WILL start dropping into lower middle class and that is dropping down a totem pole.
How? I don't think you understand how socio-economic classes work.
this is not the case currently because we are just borrowing money from china to sustain these programs and thats putting us in dept.
That is not how it works at all.
People really, really don't understand how debt and government interact.
You know he's basically the icon of dodgy pseudo-academia who slides on by because he completely endorses the beliefs of one political faction.
EDIT - I see you note Sowell is a blowhard in your next post. All is good then. Nothing to see here.
Economic Mobility Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers.
Yet, in utter disregard of such plain facts, so-called "social scientists" do studies which conclude that America is no longer a land of opportunity, and that upward mobility is a "myth."
Yeah, so basically he's saying 'sure, people have studied this, but it flies in the face of the anecdotes we like to tell, so their studies are wrong.
Opportunity is just one factor in economic advancement. How well a given individual or group takes advantage of existing opportunities is another. Only by implicitly (and arbitrarily) assuming that a failure to rise must be due to society's barriers can we say that American society no longer has opportunity for upward social mobility.
The very same attitudes and behavior that landed a father in a lower income bracket can land the son in that same bracket.
This only makes sense if one doesn't understand, or pretends not to understand, that social mobility is only assessed by comparison to other countries. And so his excuse must state that the other developed countries of the world are somehow providing less opportunity, but experience less of an issue with attitudes and behaviour being passed from father to son.
Which is, of course, completely absurd.
The welfare state promoted by those who insist that it is society that is keeping some people down makes it unnecessary for many low-income people to exert themselves -- and therefore makes it unnecessary for them to develop their own potential to the fullest.
Which only makes sense if one thought that Europe has a smaller welfare state.
Which is, of course, completely absurd.
The multiculturalist dogma that says one culture is just as good as another paints people into the cultural corner where they happened to have been born, even if other cultures around them have features that offer better prospects of rising.
That doesn't even half make sense, and is about the stupidest description of multiculturalism I've ever read.
Meanwhile, Asian immigrants or refugees who arrive here are not handicapped or distracted by a counterproductive social vision full of envy, resentment and paranoia, and so can rise in the very same society where opportunity is said to be absent.
Or, to look at the issue much more sensibly, migrants tend to be exceptional people. I mean, they've picked up and moved away from their support network of family and friends just to give their children a better chance in life.
The answer to social mobility then, in Sowell's mind, is just to expect the poor to be exceptional people, while to be happy that the wealthy and middle class can continue to be average and just slide on by, generation to generation.
But the very opposite conclusion arises in studies that follow actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time, most of whom move up across the various income brackets with the passing years. Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.
Sure, and in other countries with a more even standard of education regardless of the socio-economic region, and with a much higher minimum wage, the numbers are much better. That's the point. Social mobility isn't bad, but it could be much better if you'd just help people get the education and the income to start to climb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: EDIT: Just to be clear, I've advocated the US to move towards the Canadian Healthcare model (essentially expand Medicare to everyone). But it'll cost us.
Actually, Canada pays way less for their healthcare system than you guys pay for yours. Like a third less. And while their costs are growing greater than GDP like every healthcare system, they aren't growing at anything like the scary rate yours have grown in the last decade. Like, magically swap to Canadian healthcare today and most of your long term budget concerns would just disappear.
As to a traditional "socialistic" programs, what I find funny is folk think we don't have any in the USofA.
The only people I've ever seen claiming that have been American.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: He cannot be denied the medical care. People always seem to forget that when making these arguments.
I don't, I can even tell you that Reagan signed that piece of law.
And the issue comes afterwards, because sure he's healthy, but he's facing a $200,000 bill for costs. So there's goes the modest house he'd almost paid off half off, and his car that he was almost finished on the lease payments for. And good luck getting loans for new ones because his credit is shot to gak. And all that is gonna take maybe a year to figure out, so as well as trying to recuperate from surgery the guy has a year in financial limbo before starting back at square one.
Medical bills are the single biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US. And to those of us in the rest of the world that just reads as totally insane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote: A better question would be "Where did this cult of personal freedoms came from, and why did it went so out of hand that it now eclipse every other values?''
And how did freedoms get to be so narrowly defined, as purely freedom from government? Whatever happened to the idea that government could play a part in extending your freedoms, such as the idea that you are free from being bankkrupted because you got cancer?
I sort of expected you to link to an actual example of what you were trying to prove, rather than a case where the insurance company quite clearly said a procedure wasn't covered under policy.
Vulcan wrote: Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...
That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.
But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.
And then when the economy does start to turn around, and dollars do start to get invested... then do not feth around with that. Do not threaten sequester, or feth about with the debt ceiling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I sort of expected you to link to an actual example of what you were trying to prove, rather than a case where the insurance company quite clearly said a procedure wasn't covered under policy.
Which is, of course, a completely clear cut thing that never, ever gets debated in a court of law, all the while the person with the condition gets worse. That never happens. And no insurance company has ever run a policy of first denial.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: So if someone had a massive car accident and needed a lot of surgery in order to save his life, yet this someone worked as a janitor in a high school and therefore couldn't afford it, he shouldn't get it? With socialised medicine he could still live, without it he'd need to have health insurance and then await the insurance company's response.
Well, he'd be a government employee, so the chances he wouldn't have healthcare are pretty slim.
Also, who caused the accident? If it's not our janitor friend, the responsible party is also responsible for the medical bills. Provided they have automobile insurance and aren't, say, illegal entrants to the country driving without any sort of license or financial protection from liability.
And no, by the way, there's no "waiting for the insurance company's response" before live-saving surgery is performed.
There're private schools, so what if he worked at one of those?
What if the insurance company rejected his claim and he couldn't pay for the surgery? What then?
Its still not what im saying at all. and your not even answering the question.
how much money does it take to send a child in a dire situation to go through school.
I am part of small committee at church. We run a school in a country in Africa for about $12K a year (about 200 kids).
My argument against social mobility programs of "most" types is that it would put our country further into dept, unless we get all of our spending under control. not whether it is morality right or not. I believe its a fair sentiment to help those in need to get a good education as i believe in the teach a man to fish mentality.
But im not an economist, and i wouldn't know how to balance a complex budget of the united states government. but i can budget my own as i don't spend more then i have.
Edit: Frazzeled: that's very great that you do such a thing. and yeah id like to say put your money where your mouth is. but im not one too give when i cannot. all of my bills have gone up and im barely making it by (curse you unexpected medical bills!!!!). enough to live. not enough to live lavishly. though i could completely give up my war gaming hobby. would the rest of you? also there is donating time on the weekends which i really ot to do again =/.
Edit: Frazzeled: that's very great that you do such a thing. and yeah id like to say put your money where your mouth is. but im not one too give when i cannot. all of my bills have gone up and im barely making it by (curse you unexpected medical bills!!!!). enough to live. not enough to live lavishly. though i could completely give up my war gaming hobby. would the rest of you? also there is donating time on the weekends which i really ot to do again =/.
Oh yea, I'm not saying anything is required, just putting down our spend amount to the question.
Back when I was a young caveman in college, I couldn't do anything else so I gave blood. You do what you can in the circumstances you are in.
You know he's basically the icon of dodgy pseudo-academia who slides on by because he completely endorses the beliefs of one political faction.
EDIT - I see you note Sowell is a blowhard in your next post. All is good then. Nothing to see here.
His point remains though...
Economic Mobility Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers.
Yet, in utter disregard of such plain facts, so-called "social scientists" do studies which conclude that America is no longer a land of opportunity, and that upward mobility is a "myth."
Yeah, so basically he's saying 'sure, people have studied this, but it flies in the face of the anecdotes we like to tell, so their studies are wrong.
Have you dug in deep to review those "studies"? Just asking...
Opportunity is just one factor in economic advancement. How well a given individual or group takes advantage of existing opportunities is another. Only by implicitly (and arbitrarily) assuming that a failure to rise must be due to society's barriers can we say that American society no longer has opportunity for upward social mobility.
The very same attitudes and behavior that landed a father in a lower income bracket can land the son in that same bracket.
This only makes sense if one doesn't understand, or pretends not to understand, that social mobility is only assessed by comparison to other countries. And so his excuse must state that the other developed countries of the world are somehow providing less opportunity, but experience less of an issue with attitudes and behaviour being passed from father to son.
Which is, of course, completely absurd.
Wait...wut? Why must we compare our mobility to other countries?
The welfare state promoted by those who insist that it is society that is keeping some people down makes it unnecessary for many low-income people to exert themselves -- and therefore makes it unnecessary for them to develop their own potential to the fullest.
Which only makes sense if one thought that Europe has a smaller welfare state.
Which is, of course, completely absurd.
Welfare in Europe isn't the same as US. It ain't black in white.
The multiculturalist dogma that says one culture is just as good as another paints people into the cultural corner where they happened to have been born, even if other cultures around them have features that offer better prospects of rising.
That doesn't even half make sense, and is about the stupidest description of multiculturalism I've ever read.
Er... why not? There's always been a good debate in "multiculturalism"...
Meanwhile, Asian immigrants or refugees who arrive here are not handicapped or distracted by a counterproductive social vision full of envy, resentment and paranoia, and so can rise in the very same society where opportunity is said to be absent.
Or, to look at the issue much more sensibly, migrants tend to be exceptional people. I mean, they've picked up and moved away from their support network of family and friends just to give their children a better chance in life.
The answer to social mobility then, in Sowell's mind, is just to expect the poor to be exceptional people, while to be happy that the wealthy and middle class can continue to be average and just slide on by, generation to generation.
Man... you are really stuck on the mobility thing ain't ya?
But the very opposite conclusion arises in studies that follow actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time, most of whom move up across the various income brackets with the passing years. Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.
Sure, and in other countries with a more even standard of education regardless of the socio-economic region, and with a much higher minimum wage, the numbers are much better. That's the point. Social mobility isn't bad, but it could be much better if you'd just help people get the education and the income to start to climb.
Oh... Agreed with you 100%... it's just the how is the problem... the one-size-fits-all mentality is epidemic here in the US... especiallyin the educational system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: EDIT: Just to be clear, I've advocated the US to move towards the Canadian Healthcare model (essentially expand Medicare to everyone). But it'll cost us.
Actually, Canada pays way less for their healthcare system than you guys pay for yours. Like a third less. And while their costs are growing greater than GDP like every healthcare system, they aren't growing at anything like the scary rate yours have grown in the last decade. Like, magically swap to Canadian healthcare today and most of your long term budget concerns would just disappear.
No... that's not what I'm saying...
The people who ARE getting care, will EXPECT to get the same level of care. That's a political issue as well as an economic issue... and it'll cost us MORE to run a Canadian model. (I'd still want it tho).
As to a traditional "socialistic" programs, what I find funny is folk think we don't have any in the USofA.
The only people I've ever seen claiming that have been American.
Eh... true. We're weird people...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: He cannot be denied the medical care. People always seem to forget that when making these arguments.
I don't, I can even tell you that Reagan signed that piece of law.
And the issue comes afterwards, because sure he's healthy, but he's facing a $200,000 bill for costs. So there's goes the modest house he'd almost paid off half off, and his car that he was almost finished on the lease payments for. And good luck getting loans for new ones because his credit is shot to gak. And all that is gonna take maybe a year to figure out, so as well as trying to recuperate from surgery the guy has a year in financial limbo before starting back at square one.
Medical bills are the single biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US. And to those of us in the rest of the world that just reads as totally insane.
It's up there... but, divorce is the largest cause.
Says the government. Are they going to say "Yep, we're unequal as feth, so help us lord"?
EDIT:
As of 2011, the St. Louis area is home to nine Fortune 500 companies, including Express Scripts, Emerson Electric, Monsanto, Reinsurance Group of America, Ameren, Charter Communications, Peabody Energy, Graybar Electric, and Centene.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Says the government. Are they going to say "Yep, we're unequal as feth, so help us lord"?
EDIT:
As of 2011, the St. Louis area is home to nine Fortune 500 companies, including Express Scripts, Emerson Electric, Monsanto, Reinsurance Group of America, Ameren, Charter Communications, Peabody Energy, Graybar Electric, and Centene.
Edit: Frazzeled: that's very great that you do such a thing. and yeah id like to say put your money where your mouth is. but im not one too give when i cannot. all of my bills have gone up and im barely making it by (curse you unexpected medical bills!!!!). enough to live. not enough to live lavishly. though i could completely give up my war gaming hobby. would the rest of you? also there is donating time on the weekends which i really ot to do again =/.
Oh yea, I'm not saying anything is required, just putting down our spend amount to the question.
Back when I was a young caveman in college, I couldn't do anything else so I gave blood. You do what you can in the circumstances you are in.
I wish i could give blood, but a bad experiance(I gave blood, they punctured the vein wrong and I hemorrhagic, you could see a lump growing on my arm. I couldnt even bend it. And a girl next to me was forgotten about and they ended up taking too much blood from her. She passed out.)
I try to give, i always give spare cahnge and money to donation boxes.
It's probably not as objective as it needs to be. The data may be skewed - if I took a random survey of people about heavy metal and took a sample of 1000 people, and all I did was patrol bars around Helsinki, I may get a higher proportion of people who like heavy metal than if I took a truly fair representation and asked random people on the streets.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: It's probably not as objective as it needs to be. The data may be skewed - if I took a random survey of people about heavy metal and took a sample of 1000 people, and all I did was patrol bars around Helsinki, I may get a higher proportion of people who like heavy metal than if I took a truly fair representation and asked random people on the streets.
? That study wasn't in just in the St. Louis area dude... think bigger.
To me, the fact that he dismisses an entire field of science because it doesn't agree with what he believes with its findings is reason enough to ignore him.
There are aslo several things, yes america is the land of opportunity, But only at a certain part in your life
Let me give you an anecdote, my friend got a girl pregnant right out of highschool, he had to get a job right away to support them. So he doesnt get the advantages me and my friends get. Such as going to school full-time, having his parents help with school. The point is, yes he can do it, but the odds are stacked against him.
I know many people who maybe not have kids, but little siblings who need taking care of.
To me, the fact that he dismisses an entire field of science because it doesn't agree with what he believes with its findings is reason enough to ignore him.
Who... Sowell? Well, the problem here is that far too often, people believe whatever the academia folks expouses it's gospel. (Edit, Sowell was a professor, so he plays that game well).
Take a look at this site or pdf that I recently posted.
I guess one can argue that we should be making it easier... sure. But, to me, I've seen too much "woe is me" mentality...
There are aslo several things, yes america is the land of opportunity, But only at a certain part in your life
Correct... that's life.
Let me give you an anecdote, my friend got a girl pregnant right out of highschool, he had to get a job right away to support them. So he doesnt get the advantages me and my friends get. Such as going to school full-time, having his parents help with school. The point is, yes he can do it, but the odds are stacked against him.
Again... that's life. I can give you just as many anecdote on this too... Some pulled themselves together and made lemonade out of lemons. And, some didn't.
I know many people who maybe not have kids, but little siblings who need taking care of.
So do I... I've known friends where both parents disappeared, and those friends worked (and went to school) to support their siblings.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I guess th only thing that can be said is the fact the it is very dependent on the situation people have.
And yeah, that's true.
I also think that there's a lack of effort to EDUCATE people of needs (poor, disabled, single-mom) of programs are available for them. I hear many, many times that people are shocked that "x programs" existed.
I still do not think the the field is as level as it should be. Those families of higher wealth tend to actually be able to help their kids with various projects and college. I remember various Kids from HS deciding to not go to the College counselor because they thought they would never even go to college. Money plays more roles then you think. Not just monetary, but many a poor kid tend not to have help with homework and projects.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I still do not think the the field is as level as it should be. Those families of higher wealth tend to actually be able to help their kids with various projects and college. I remember various Kids from HS deciding to not go to the College counselor because they thought they would never even go to college. Money plays more roles then you think. Not just monetary, but many a poor kid tend not to have help with homework and projects.
I understand that... but, that's life.
Everyone has a chance... but it's impossible to give everyone an equal chance.
My argument against social mobility programs of "most" types is that it would put our country further into dept, unless we get all of our spending under control. not whether it is morality right or not. I believe its a fair sentiment to help those in need to get a good education as i believe in the teach a man to fish mentality.
The problem, I think, is that you're focused absolutely on the dollar cost in the present. If you look at the cost of excluding kids that might otherwise be excellent doctors, engineers and scientists, isn't it just as possible to declare you can't afford to exclude that talent from the next generation that will drive your economy forward?
You want to talk about what you can afford, think about breaking the poverty trap, drawing those kids up into the middle class... how can you afford to let another generation be a drain on the federal coffers?
But im not an economist, and i wouldn't know how to balance a complex budget of the united states government.
but i can budget my own as i don't spend more then i have.
The thing most people don't get is that budgeting at the individual level (earn more than you spend) simply stops functioning when you get to the level of the economy.
To explain it as simply as possible, what you spend is another person's income. And what you earn is dependant on someone else spending. That is what economics is, not dollar and cents, but a network of interactions, where earning allows you to spend, and spending is the only way anyone can earn. And so government's role is not just about minding its surplus/deficit, but also to make sure that the overall network of spending and earning continues.
This can mean, in the short term that in certain circumstances where the rest of the economy is saving more than it spends it is not only acceptable but an unquestionably good thing for government to undergo a short term period of spending more than it taxes, to maintain as best it can the above network of overall spending and earning.
[quote=whembly 512244 5377749 ebfcf2b2645ee012a00cf2c1013c4d94.jpgHave you dug in deep to review those "studies"? Just asking...
I've read quite a few. And more importantly, I've learned that between people that have completed a study on a subject and released it for peer review, and people rejecting that because they have personal anecdotes, that it is always smarter to back the former and reject the latter.
Wait...wut? Why must we compare our mobility to other countries?
Because the original claim that set all of this off from Gray Templar stated - "Not everyone has an equal chance, but that was never promised. Its just that in America you have a better chance than anywhere else."
"Better" means in comparison to other countries. And by actually comparing to other countries, we can see that claim is completely and utterly wrong.
And to look at the issue in a wider view, why wouldn't you look to see how things are working elsewhere in the world. I mean, it's an issue where more is always better (absolute social mobility means true meritocracy, which is both the most efficient of all possible states and the one where the most talented are employed in the most important and highest paid jobs), but where practical realities mean you'll never get there. So the question becomes how close can we actually get?
And the way to do that is by looking at other countries and seeing how well they do at it.
Welfare in Europe isn't the same as US. It ain't black in white.
No, it isn't the same. But to just declare US welfare part of the problem of social mobility without any reference to other countries is just terrible, lazy analysis.
Instead, there is scope to look at Europe, and pick apart how their social safety net enhances social mobility, and how the US system might fail to do the same. As a means of reforming the US welfare system to better deliver results that sounds like a sensible approach.
But to just sound off about welfare in the US and its negative impact on personal motivation (especially with the same old rhetoric that was used before the Clinton reforms) and just use it as an excuse about social mobility... well that's just plain lazy.
Er... why not? There's always been a good debate in "multiculturalism"...
Sure, but to describe multiculturalism as this thing where people are somehow denied the ability to absorb practices from other cultures is very, very stupid. And to then try to extend that nonsense to some kind of an explanation for why
And, once again, you've also got the problem of assuming it is only an American problem, that somehow the rest of the developed world just doesn't have any kind of multiculturalism of its own.
Man... you are really stuck on the mobility thing ain't ya?
Hang on, what? Are you telling me that in a conversation on social mobility that I'm talking about social mobility too much?
Oh... Agreed with you 100%... it's just the how is the problem... the one-size-fits-all mentality is epidemic here in the US... especiallyin the educational system.
I agree with you on the one size fits all mentality as a problem (right now in Australia there's a series of fights from the states against the Federal government over various issues where the Fed is trying take control - health, education, industrial regulation etc). I'm not sure that really impact social mobility, though.
No... that's not what I'm saying...
The people who ARE getting care, will EXPECT to get the same level of care. That's a political issue as well as an economic issue... and it'll cost us MORE to run a Canadian model. (I'd still want it tho).
You have to begin to realise that what you pay for healthcare is not absolutely tied to the quality of healthcare you receive. That other systems actually deliver the exact same procedures for less dollars.
Under a Canadian system, or many other systems around the world, you could actually receive the same quality of care you receive today, and save money.
Eh... true. We're weird people...
No weirder than anyone else
It's just that for a whole lot of reasons, we end up talking about your weirdness more than anyone else's.
It's up there... but, divorce is the largest cause.
Sure, but divorce is at least up to the couple, and I can't see any government anywhere in the world saying 'if you decide to end your marriage we'll pay for all the costs'.
Whereas most governments have said 'if you get really sick the cost of getting better won't make you lose your house'.
The findings are valuable, but the conclusions are screwy (do we really want another text wall with me explaining why? ).
And it's worth pointing out that social mobility across the developed world is actually much better than most people assume. The idea that a parent in the lowest quintile is more likely than not to have children who are poor is false - the kids a more likely than not to be middle class. And the same is true for rich parents (but not mega-rich parents) - their kids are actually more likely than not to be middle class.
The issue is first of all with Gray Templar's assertion, that is believed by many Americans - that a person is more likely to 'make it' there than anywhere else. That's simply false, and demonstrated as such over hundreds of studies. And the second issue is with the idea that while things may actually be better than most believe, they can get much better without that much more effort.
sebster wrote: [quote=whembly 512244 5377749 ebfcf2b2645ee012a00cf2c1013c4d94.jpgHave you dug in deep to review those "studies"? Just asking...
I've read quite a few. And more importantly, I've learned that between people that have completed a study on a subject and released it for peer review, and people rejecting that because they have personal anecdotes, that it is always smarter to back the former and reject the latter..
I've read quite a few too as my ex's dad is part of a state department that help find people jobs and government assistances... who has all of these data points at his finger tips. My state (and I'm sure others are doing this too) are really, REALLY good at collecting these kinds of data and extrapolating on these movements..in fact, I've read quite a bit on the subject.
Most academia reviews on this subject are inherently slanted to the idea that "Our current model is wrong"... and they really go afters the flaws of the system to such degree that they've either ignored or dampen some of the good aspects... Conversely, there a study that I believe you'd be really interested in by Washington University that surmise that the percieved lack of mobility was essentially "Crying Wolf" (and I can't fething find it... you'd appreciate it cause of all the gooey details and datapoints).
Wait...wut? Why must we compare our mobility to other countries?
Because the original claim that set all of this off from Gray Templar stated - "Not everyone has an equal chance, but that was never promised. Its just that in America you have a better chance than anywhere else."
"Better" means in comparison to other countries. And by actually comparing to other countries, we can see that claim is completely and utterly wrong.
Eh... that's rather subjective and maybe it's the "Murrica, rah-rah" mindset... we have it good here imo... but, I can't say by how much because I've never lived anywhere else.
And to look at the issue in a wider view, why wouldn't you look to see how things are working elsewhere in the world. I mean, it's an issue where more is always better (absolute social mobility means true meritocracy, which is both the most efficient of all possible states and the one where the most talented are employed in the most important and highest paid jobs), but where practical realities mean you'll never get there. So the question becomes how close can we actually get?
And the way to do that is by looking at other countries and seeing how well they do at it.
And in my opinion, you shouldn't but too much weight into looking at other countries.
Look, I deal with multiple relational database and health informatic groups. I know how hard it is to analyse complex systems and attempting to do an "apples-to-apples" comparison between countries is almost pointless. There are so many variables in such a review that the combinations / permutations and, let's face it, "human element" to really make a good analysis...
Welfare in Europe isn't the same as US. It ain't black in white.
No, it isn't the same. But to just declare US welfare part of the problem of social mobility without any reference to other countries is just terrible, lazy analysis.
Instead, there is scope to look at Europe, and pick apart how their social safety net enhances social mobility, and how the US system might fail to do the same. As a means of reforming the US welfare system to better deliver results that sounds like a sensible approach.
But to just sound off about welfare in the US and its negative impact on personal motivation (especially with the same old rhetoric that was used before the Clinton reforms) and just use it as an excuse about social mobility... well that's just plain lazy.
Yeah, I agree in Sowell's article that it was lazy... but, there's merits to the idea that a well endowed welfare system can disincentivize(sp?) activities towards positive social mobility.
Er... why not? There's always been a good debate in "multiculturalism"...
Sure, but to describe multiculturalism as this thing where people are somehow denied the ability to absorb practices from other cultures is very, very stupid. And to then try to extend that nonsense to some kind of an explanation for why
And, once again, you've also got the problem of assuming it is only an American problem, that somehow the rest of the developed world just doesn't have any kind of multiculturalism of its own.
Sure, every country is dealing with multiculturalism to a certain degree... but, lately, in the U.S.... it's been taboo to attribute any failings on multiculturalism. It's like its racist or something. o.O
Man... you are really stuck on the mobility thing ain't ya?
Hang on, what? Are you telling me that in a conversation on social mobility that I'm talking about social mobility too much?
Fair enough.
Oh... Agreed with you 100%... it's just the how is the problem... the one-size-fits-all mentality is epidemic here in the US... especiallyin the educational system.
I agree with you on the one size fits all mentality as a problem (right now in Australia there's a series of fights from the states against the Federal government over various issues where the Fed is trying take control - health, education, industrial regulation etc). I'm not sure that really impact social mobility, though.
That's the debate isn't it? How far do we push/pull that lever towards government/free market principle?
No... that's not what I'm saying...
The people who ARE getting care, will EXPECT to get the same level of care. That's a political issue as well as an economic issue... and it'll cost us MORE to run a Canadian model. (I'd still want it tho).
You have to begin to realise that what you pay for healthcare is not absolutely tied to the quality of healthcare you receive. That other systems actually deliver the exact same procedures for less dollars.
Under a Canadian system, or many other systems around the world, you could actually receive the same quality of care you receive today, and save money.
No... that's false. I don't think you've grasp what it would take for us to convert to something like the Canadian model. It won't be like a "switch".
Remember... we're weird and we have weird ideas/wants...
I'm telling you this who's been privy to discussion with my CEO of my healthcare orgranization. Here are two things I've learned:
1) ACA act is good... because, eventually everyone who walks in the door will be covered with some sort of insurance. Which means, they'd get some reimbursement for every visit.
--- you have to understand, these are business men looking at $$$$
2) For the US to go nationalised, we'd have to experience some sort of economic collapse. That'd be the only way that the US citizen would tolerate a massive takeover of the Health insurance companies. Don't get me wrong, they want the Canadian model but not at the expense of experiencing another Great Depression.
Eh... true. We're weird people...
No weirder than anyone else
It's just that for a whole lot of reasons, we end up talking about your weirdness more than anyone else's.
Hey, we have people phreaking over bewbs! But, hey, we're fine with peoples head blown off on TeeVee...
See... weird. What's wrong with bewbs?
It's up there... but, divorce is the largest cause.
Sure, but divorce is at least up to the couple, and I can't see any government anywhere in the world saying 'if you decide to end your marriage we'll pay for all the costs'.
Whereas most governments have said 'if you get really sick the cost of getting better won't make you lose your house'.
Whaaaa? Government don't pay for all of the bankruptcy cost. Where did you get that idea?
Also, in most states, you don't lose your house (and your car too).
There are problems with the US Health System... but, bankruptcy isn't it.
The findings are valuable, but the conclusions are screwy (do we really want another text wall with me explaining why? ).
? Why not? That's why I shared it with ya... there's a PDF with more gooey details.
And it's worth pointing out that social mobility across the developed world is actually much better than most people assume. The idea that a parent in the lowest quintile is more likely than not to have children who are poor is false - the kids a more likely than not to be middle class. And the same is true for rich parents (but not mega-rich parents) - their kids are actually more likely than not to be middle class.
Yeah, I'd go with that...
The issue is first of all with Gray Templar's assertion, that is believed by many Americans - that a person is more likely to 'make it' there than anywhere else. That's simply false, and demonstrated as such over hundreds of studies.
Like I said... "Murrica...rah-rah"????
And the second issue is with the idea that while things may actually be better than most believe, they can get much better without that much more effort.
Well... sure, if you're ready to take the risk.
I can probably find a job that requires minimal travel and fully equiped home office... and, i could problaby move to Costa Rica and live like real king with my purchase power there. But... I don't wanna leave the states. *shrugs*
My argument against social mobility programs of "most" types is that it would put our country further into dept, unless we get all of our spending under control. not whether it is morality right or not. I believe its a fair sentiment to help those in need to get a good education as i believe in the teach a man to fish mentality.
The problem, I think, is that you're focused absolutely on the dollar cost in the present. If you look at the cost of excluding kids that might otherwise be excellent doctors, engineers and scientists, isn't it just as possible to declare you can't afford to exclude that talent from the next generation that will drive your economy forward?
You want to talk about what you can afford, think about breaking the poverty trap, drawing those kids up into the middle class... how can you afford to let another generation be a drain on the federal coffers?
But im not an economist, and i wouldn't know how to balance a complex budget of the united states government.
but i can budget my own as i don't spend more then i have.
The thing most people don't get is that budgeting at the individual level (earn more than you spend) simply stops functioning when you get to the level of the economy.
To explain it as simply as possible, what you spend is another person's income. And what you earn is dependant on someone else spending. That is what economics is, not dollar and cents, but a network of interactions, where earning allows you to spend, and spending is the only way anyone can earn. And so government's role is not just about minding its surplus/deficit, but also to make sure that the overall network of spending and earning continues.
This can mean, in the short term that in certain circumstances where the rest of the economy is saving more than it spends it is not only acceptable but an unquestionably good thing for government to undergo a short term period of spending more than it taxes, to maintain as best it can the above network of overall spending and earning.
But ignoring the dollars part is completely irresponsible. a programs like these are permanent, and its not short term. you have to pay for these programs for every generation, and the payment keeps moving every generation if you are spending at a deficit. all i want to know is how much will you be willing to make everyone pay for such a thing? the intentions are good but unless someone can come up with a realistic plan its pointless.
also please explain how going into dept for a short period of time is good for a country and how this applies to long term programs like these? i mean im not an economist.
At one point we should be bring more in then we spend to pay it off but how would you do that?
whembly wrote: I've read quite a few too as my ex's dad is part of a state department that help find people jobs and government assistances... who has all of these data points at his finger tips. My state (and I'm sure others are doing this too) are really, REALLY good at collecting these kinds of data and extrapolating on these movements..in fact, I've read quite a bit on the subject.
Most academia reviews on this subject are inherently slanted to the idea that "Our current model is wrong"... and they really go afters the flaws of the system to such degree that they've either ignored or dampen some of the good aspects... Conversely, there a study that I believe you'd be really interested in by Washington University that surmise that the percieved lack of mobility was essentially "Crying Wolf" (and I can't fething find it... you'd appreciate it cause of all the gooey details and datapoints).
I actually would really like that, especially given how subjective any kind of measure on something like this can be. If you manage to find it that'd be great.
Eh... that's rather subjective and maybe it's the "Murrica, rah-rah" mindset... we have it good here imo... but, I can't say by how much because I've never lived anywhere else.
Absolutely you have it good, like the rest of the developed world (I get bored very quickly with people who claim China or whoever else has such a better system because they're stockpiling cash and therefore somehow 'winning', when here in the developed world we're delivering a very high standard of living to most citizens - sure a more important measure).
But having it good doesn't mean calling it a day. Nor does it mean claiming that you have it better than anywhere else, as Gray Templar did.
And in my opinion, you shouldn't but too much weight into looking at other countries.
Look, I deal with multiple relational database and health informatic groups. I know how hard it is to analyse complex systems and attempting to do an "apples-to-apples" comparison between countries is almost pointless. There are so many variables in such a review that the combinations / permutations and, let's face it, "human element" to really make a good analysis...
I agree that's true in many places, especially in healthcare. But it doesn't mean that we just give up and ignore any and all comparisons, just that we do our best to make equivalents as accurate as possible, and make sure to spell out any places where comparisons are not completely equal.
Yeah, I agree in Sowell's article that it was lazy... but, there's merits to the idea that a well endowed welfare system can disincentivize(sp?) activities towards positive social mobility.
Definitely, and that's a thing every welfare system has to balance. But I think most do a pretty good job of achieving that balance, in most places. The biggest challenge seems to come from having a basic cost of living that can often be higher than the minimum wage... in which case the answer to me seems to be to make sure 40 hours at the minimum wage is a much better pay than the minimum cost of living handed out by welfare.
So up that minimum wage!
Sure, every country is dealing with multiculturalism to a certain degree... but, lately, in the U.S.... it's been taboo to attribute any failings on multiculturalism. It's like its racist or something. o.O
We all get that man. Hey, over here it can actually be illegal, if someone chooses to see it as offensive. Seriously.
Point being we've all got the challenge of trying to have a real and meaningful conversation on multiculturalism can be improved, while often getting shouted down by the self-righteous left and the racists/nostalgics longing for some idealised 1950s world. Just gotta keep sticking to the middle ground, and making sure the point is made clear despite the noise of the extremists of both sides.
Fair enough.
That's the debate isn't it? How far do we push/pull that lever towards government/free market principle?
True, there's basically a forever debate to be had on how much tax we're willing to pay to help people.
No... that's false. I don't think you've grasp what it would take for us to convert to something like the Canadian model. It won't be like a "switch".
Oh, absolutely. You can't just stop using your system one day and start using another system the next day. I'm talking in very simplistic terms, to express one simple point - other systems deliver equal or better standards of healthcare for less dollars. From there where you take that information is more complex.
Hey, we have people phreaking over bewbs! But, hey, we're fine with peoples head blown off on TeeVee...
See... weird. What's wrong with bewbs?
We Australians spend a huge amount of time talking about how backward Americans are about gay rights issues, but we just banned one of your movies from showing here because it's got gay sex in it.
And you have gay marriage in some states, something that won't happen here for a very long time.
Whaaaa? Government don't pay for all of the bankruptcy cost. Where did you get that idea?
I didn't. I said nowhere in the world will a government even consider stepping in to pay for divorce costs, so while it may be a major cause of bankruptcy it isn't really relevant to this discussion. Whereas when one developed nation has a very high number of bankruptcy caused by medical expenses, while the other developed countries have no such thing and get on just fine, it's a worthwhile point of discussion.
There are problems with the US Health System... but, bankruptcy isn't it.
No, seriously, it's the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US.
First up, there's a big difference between income inequality and social mobility. Income inequality is just asking the difference between what a person at the top earns, compared to someone in the middle or at the bottom. Whereas social mobility is about how freely people move between the categories (and inter-generational mobility asks how much the advantage of having high income parents matters compared to hard work and talent).
"Wealthy people are not wealthy because they have more money; it is because they have greater productivity."
Well that's a basic mistake between wealth and income. Income is what you earn in a year - how much new money comes your way. Wealth is your sum total of assets at any given point in time. And in confusing the two they miss a big point in what drive income inequality.
"Redistribution of wealth increases the costs of entrepreneurship and innovation, with the result being lower overall economic growth for everyone."
Wildly speculative. Redistribution also opens the door up to capable people who would otherwise be trapped in a poverty cycle and unable to experiment. Whether the economic activity gained from engaging more people in the system outweighs the economic activity lost from having higher taxes for successful entrepreneurs is a near impossible question to answer.
Consider JK Rowling, who took a year off from teaching to write Harry Potter. Now, you might not be comfortable with the idea of someone getting paid after choosing to not work for a year (personally I think she kind of scammed the system) but at the end of the day, that was possible in the UK and now there's the billion dollar Harry Potter thing.
"Poverty and income inequality are related, but only the former deserves a policy-based response."
Only as long as the only issue is ensuring no poverty. Given the importance of a healthy middle class to any modern democratic society, I find that argument screwy.
I think there's a problem with what they're looking at there. I mean, it shows that people tend to start on low incomes and move to high incomes. I mean, duh. The only thing that's showing is that the economy is working as we all thought it does.
Whereas inter-generational social mobility is asking a much bigger, and much more challenging question - does the income of the parents impact the income of the children.
Like I said... "Murrica...rah-rah"????
That's basically it, yeah.
One of the most puzzling things to me about America is how strangely you think about your own country. In something like the America being the best place for a person to move from the bottom to the top through their own hard work and talent, it's an almost unquestionable belief, despite being completely and utterly wrong.
But elsewhere where you've got exceptional strengths, you complain constantly.
Well... sure, if you're ready to take the risk.
I don't personally consider equitable school funding and a higher minimum wage a risk. In fact I'd call them essential elements of nation building.
sebster wrote:And how did freedoms get to be so narrowly defined, as purely freedom from government? Whatever happened to the idea that government could play a part in extending your freedoms, such as the idea that you are free from being bankkrupted because you got cancer?
One of the most puzzling things to me about America is how strangely you think about your own country. In something like the America being the best place for a person to move from the bottom to the top through their own hard work and talent, it's an almost unquestionable belief, despite being completely and utterly wrong.
My personal favorite is the constant refrain for more stringent academic standards, despite a broad lack willingness to employ "failures".
sebster wrote:And how did freedoms get to be so narrowly defined, as purely freedom from government? Whatever happened to the idea that government could play a part in extending your freedoms, such as the idea that you are free from being bankkrupted because you got cancer?
I think it's John Locke's fault.
It really isn't. John Locke's definition of social freedom (or liberty) aimed only at opposing that of Hobbes, which was much more vile. Social liberty à la Locke requires a government, but also requires your assent to it, and that that government aims at your benefit.
And as for Sebster's question, freedom is so narrowly defined only and always when it suits the purpose. Every academic will tell you that freedom is a term with many different significations.
In fact, if we Westerners didn't worship freedom and put it on a pedestal above every other value, we might actually get away with a Hobbesian definition of freedom. From a strictly semantical point of view, we do tend to mix power and freedom. If we could always talk of freedom in relation to power, security, happiness and health (most obvious and pragmatic values I could think of), then talking about freedom as 'absence of restriction' would make sense.
Vulcan wrote: Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...
That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.
But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.
The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!
Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.
Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.
When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.
Vulcan wrote: Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...
That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.
But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.
The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!
Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.
Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.
When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.
That's all fine and dandy in abstract... but, you're not assessing the human element here.
One of the most puzzling things to me about America is how strangely you think about your own country. In something like the America being the best place for a person to move from the bottom to the top through their own hard work and talent, it's an almost unquestionable belief, despite being completely and utterly wrong.
My personal favorite is the constant refrain for more stringent academic standards, despite a broad lack willingness to employ "failures".
This is how the wealth inequality is propegated through the generations. Weath generates advantatges denied to the poor, so the poor cannot learn the skills to become wealthy, thus ensuring they stay poor.
And then people with money complain about how much it costs to keep the poor from dying in the streets. How about you spend some money on educating their kids so they CAN learn the skills to... well, at least not be so poor they need government assistance to survive?
Vulcan wrote: Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...
That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.
But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.
The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!
Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.
Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.
When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.
That's all fine and dandy in abstract... but, you're not assessing the human element here.
What's the incentive to invest that money?
On an individual basis, not much. But on a CORPORATE basis, the incentive is to counteract the five-year trend of falling sales revenues caused by a near-total lack of liquidity in the American economy.
If some of that money doesn't go back into the economy for people to spend, the American economy WILL collapse inside five years, ten at the outside. That's how long businesses in America can withstand the slow hemmorage of sales numbers before the majority of them are in the red... and file for bankruptcy. Which will chop the amount of money in circulation even more dramatically, leading to even lower revenues among the businesses that survived that far, leading to more bankruptcies...
Vulcan wrote: Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...
That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.
But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.
The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!
Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.
Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.
When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.
You keep the money in case the economy tanks. You keep the money to avoid repatriating it and incurring taxes. Otherwise if the shareholders want special distributions they can vote on it.
Desubot wrote: But ignoring the dollars part is completely irresponsible. a programs like these are permanent, and its not short term.
Please read what I am writing. Actually start to finish, read the whole sentence. Because it's becoming clear you're really not doing that, and it's getting boring.
The point I made, very fething clearly, was that there are dollar costs in the present, and dollar costs in the future. You are looking purely at the dollar cost today and asking 'oh how can we possibly pay for this?', while I am pointing out the dollar cost of a guy getting a shoddy education and then grinding from minimum wage job to minimum wage job, getting government money to support all the kids he's got but can't afford, and maybe spending some time in jail for some stupid nonsense he did without thinking... that's a hell of a lot more than the cost of giving him 12 years of schooling.
Do you get it now?
also please explain how going into dept for a short period of time is good for a country and how this applies to long term programs like these? i mean im not an economist.
I did explain it, but if you really want I'll try again. The economy is a network of self interested people, all looking after their own best interests. I earn money and spend it, and that spending is the next person's income, and so on an so on, every person's income is dependant on other people spending. When everything is going well it produces at its maximum capacity, and even invests more to expand that capacity. But things will happen to breakdown that network (such as the Global Financial Crisis) and parts of the economy will decline. That in itself isn't a bad thing, but what happens from there is that those people will stop spending, and so other people who weren't part of that original breakdown will start to see their own incomes decline, and so they'll spend less, and other people will see their incomes decline. In turn they spend less, and so other incomes decline, and so on. And so it spreads through the entire economy.
All of a sudden, the total amount produced by the economy is much lower than it was before, despite us still having the same technical expertise, and the same technology and machinery available. All that extra ability is just lost, in the form of unemployed people and machinery. Instead of allowing this spiral to take place, instead of just tolerating that for a period of time the economy will just be wastefully less than it can be, government steps in. They increase their own spending, and cut off the downward spiral described above.
People freak out because 'aargh government debt' not realising the cost of leaving all those unemployed resources idle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote: And as for Sebster's question, freedom is so narrowly defined only and always when it suits the purpose. Every academic will tell you that freedom is a term with many different significations.
In fact, if we Westerners didn't worship freedom and put it on a pedestal above every other value, we might actually get away with a Hobbesian definition of freedom. From a strictly semantical point of view, we do tend to mix power and freedom. If we could always talk of freedom in relation to power, security, happiness and health (most obvious and pragmatic values I could think of), then talking about freedom as 'absence of restriction' would make sense.
I agree that freedom is defined narrowly and to the purpose of the one defining it (it's often funny how freedom is defined purely in terms of money, as if the only freedom to consider is the freedom of money to be moved as those with it choose to move it).
And I agree with your summary, and really like the way you expressed it. If freedom were seen as only one of many important factors, then it could be defined as narrowly as stated. But instead, taken as all important and stretched by the individual to whatever he personally thinks is important, then the definition purely in terms of freedom from government is very problematic.
He's certainly part of the origin. But when you read about Locke's labour theory of value and see how it became Marx's own labour theory of value, I think it's safe to say there's been a lot of selective editing of what parts of Locke's theories ended up in the American theory of freedom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing.
I just said that. I then went on to explain why that money continues to sit there, and how it's silly to just expect that money to start being used, just because wouldn't it be nice if it was.
None of which, fairly obviously, you even half bothered to read.
If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!
Only if you represent all of the economy. Which, obviously, no company does. Instead of all the money your employees spend, it is going to be spent in other companies as much as it is spend in your own. Consider real estate giant WalMart, with revenue of about 450 billion. Consider if they just upped the salaries they paid by a billion. That would all get spent again through the economy. But given its a 15 trillion economy only 3% of that money would come back to WalMart, the rest would go to all the other companies that make up the economy.
So on their 'lets just pay everyone more money' scheme, WalMart spent $1 billion and got back $30 million. That's called failing at business.
Now, if you want to go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll note I pointed out this changes when every company does the same thing. Everyone invests in new staff and expands business. Then everyone benefits equally from the increase in production.
But no invidual company will do that, because the benefits spreads across the whole. It's called tragedy of the commons.
The only organisation with the scale and deep pockets to do this, and with a mission statement of the overall benefit (and not just personal profit) is government. Hence the call for government spending during recession.
When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.
Yes, it is that simple. The problem comes with the tragedy of the commons. Which is a simple thing you would have learned about if you'd bothered to read my first answer.
I understand your point. But i have to add how many of these "guys" will actually succeed and add more wealth back into the system, and how many more will regress back into failure with the added cost of schooling? And that's my point. this is basically gambling and I'm not talking about education programs alone. You could give a man 1000$ in food stamps and watch him save his own money to fund his opportunities out of poverty, but it is entry possible the same person could spend his money on a new xbox and nothing is gained. Its not that there are no incentives, its that there is no enforcement of abuse. people that can will regress and become leaches to the system. how much more will that add to your cost?
And now that you have explained again (thank you) the only thing i have to ask is, wouldn't giving people incentives to spend there money via say tax breaks, do the same thing? Government takes in less and spends less while the people have the opportunity to spend and invest in what they want. people wont spend there hard earned money if they have less and less of it every month. same goes for businesses.
Quite frankly if this discussion is become too boring for you then perhaps we should just end it.
Desubot wrote: I understand your point. But i have to add how many of these "guys" will actually succeed and add more wealth back into the system, and how many more will regress back into failure with the added cost of schooling?
Do you have any reason to believe the number will be low? Any lower than it would be for the people we put through our education systems right now?
And now that you have explained again (thank you) the only thing i have to ask is, wouldn't giving people incentives to spend there money via say tax breaks, do the same thing? Government takes in less and spends less while the people have the opportunity to spend and invest in what they want. people wont spend there hard earned money if they have less and less of it every month. same goes for businesses.
Different kinds of spending have different impacts. One of the big issues is whether people will just squirrel that money away like they would any other money, or if they spend it how likely it is to be spent on overseas goods. Economists study this stuff pretty regularly, and the results are pretty consistent - infrastructure projects produce the biggest impact on demand, while tax cuts perform the worst. Even just straight up cutting everyone a cheque and sending it out to every person does better than tax cuts (presumably because a big chunk of new money is likely to be spent on a splurge item, while simply increasing take home pay is unlikely to change spending habits materially).
That said, there are other factors. Big infrastructure project can't be decided upon on Monday, and underway on Tuesday. There's a long lead in time which means they might be a good part of the long term spending plan during recession, but they can't be used as a response to an immediate crisis, whereas you can decide to give people money and/or cut taxes, and put that into place the next day. And given the political realities, it is just plain more practical to put a stimulus plan in place that has a mix of options.
Quite frankly if this discussion is become too boring for you then perhaps we should just end it.
Vulcan wrote: Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...
That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.
But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.
The real problem with the economy IS all that money sitting there doing nothing. If you don't wish to start a new business, fine. How about giving your existing employees a RAISE? That way they have more money to spend... which circulates throughout the economy and comes back to you in new revenue!
Money sitting in a bank account or on Wall Street stays there and does very little. Thus, it gets counted ONCE.
Money in circulation gets spent - thus giving multiple people chances to earn the same dollar over the course of a month. Thus that dollar, passed through many hands and earned many times, gets counted MANY TIMES.
When money IN circulation goes OUT of circulation the economy shrinks. When it goes back into circulation, the economy grows. It really is that simple.
You keep the money in case the economy tanks. You keep the money to avoid repatriating it and incurring taxes. Otherwise if the shareholders want special distributions they can vote on it.
If the economy tanks, it doesn't really matter how much money a corporation has. Without new revenue to support it, it goes out of business, period. So... where again is the need to hold onto the money?
Desubot wrote: I understand your point. But i have to add how many of these "guys" will actually succeed and add more wealth back into the system, and how many more will regress back into failure with the added cost of schooling?
Do you have any reason to believe the number will be low? Any lower than it would be for the people we put through our education systems right now?
And now that you have explained again (thank you) the only thing i have to ask is, wouldn't giving people incentives to spend there money via say tax breaks, do the same thing? Government takes in less and spends less while the people have the opportunity to spend and invest in what they want. people wont spend there hard earned money if they have less and less of it every month. same goes for businesses.
Different kinds of spending have different impacts. One of the big issues is whether people will just squirrel that money away like they would any other money, or if they spend it how likely it is to be spent on overseas goods. Economists study this stuff pretty regularly, and the results are pretty consistent - infrastructure projects produce the biggest impact on demand, while tax cuts perform the worst. Even just straight up cutting everyone a cheque and sending it out to every person does better than tax cuts (presumably because a big chunk of new money is likely to be spent on a splurge item, while simply increasing take home pay is unlikely to change spending habits materially).
That said, there are other factors. Big infrastructure project can't be decided upon on Monday, and underway on Tuesday. There's a long lead in time which means they might be a good part of the long term spending plan during recession, but they can't be used as a response to an immediate crisis, whereas you can decide to give people money and/or cut taxes, and put that into place the next day. And given the political realities, it is just plain more practical to put a stimulus plan in place that has a mix of options.
Quite frankly if this discussion is become too boring for you then perhaps we should just end it.
No, it's fine.
I don't have any reason to believe that the number will be low. But nor do i have any reason to believe that the numbers will be high ether. as long as the program can create more successes that can cover the cost (by that mean from the addition potential created business, jobs and taxes gained) i wouldn't have a problem with it. but without hard numbers and only going based on futures, it is basically gambling, and gambling with the taxpayers money at that (should the government have such a right? though i feel this may be a bit OT)
My other worry is that with what would be a flood of people in the system, the quality of service could be impacted, as it already is in the states, especially in public schools.
is the potentially lowering the standards be a good thing overall? especially for our doctors and engineers?
To the second point which makes sense though i always though squirreling away money in banks helped decrease interest rates allowing for bigger purchases such as cars and homes in the future. (il admit i might be wrong) but also to clarify i would have no problem with state level infrastructure programs and stimulus while im further concerned with bigger federal programs as it begins to get farm more complex.
Desubot wrote: I don't have any reason to believe that the number will be low. But nor do i have any reason to believe that the numbers will be high ether. as long as the program can create more successes that can cover the cost (by that mean from the addition potential created business, jobs and taxes gained) i wouldn't have a problem with it. but without hard numbers and only going based on futures, it is basically gambling, and gambling with the taxpayers money at that (should the government have such a right? though i feel this may be a bit OT)
But we do this right now. This 'gambling' you're talking about is exactly what the public education system does right now. It's just that instead of just 'gambling' on the kids in the middle class, it's gambling on every kid born in the country.
My other worry is that with what would be a flood of people in the system, the quality of service could be impacted, as it already is in the states, especially in public schools.
No, it's not about new people into the system. Everyone gets an education now, there will be no new people who previously never got an education suddenly becoming part of the system.
It's about giving the kids already in the system as good a standard of education, whether they're born in poor or middle class areas.
is the potentially lowering the standards be a good thing overall? especially for our doctors and engineers?
It isn't lowering the standard. It's investing the money to make sure everyone gets the same high standard. Which means more people get the education that makes it possible for them to become doctors and engineers. Which means a greater pool competing for college educations in medicine and engineering, which means the medical and engineering schools can be more selective and pick better candidates, which means the standard of medicine and engineering improves.
To the second point which makes sense though i always though squirreling away money in banks helped decrease interest rates allowing for bigger purchases such as cars and homes in the future. (il admit i might be wrong)
Sure, and in normal economic conditions that's exactly how it works. If there's more savings than investment the interest rate drops, making saving less attractive and investment more attractive, leading to a balance.
But there comes a point where interest rates can't drop any more. It's called the zero lower bound, and basically means there is a point where interest rates can't drop any more - risk free investment (such as treasury bonds) is basically borrowed at very close to 0% return. That's the point you're in now, and it means that interest rates just don't work any more. You have to do something else, like directly increasing aggregate demand by government spending more money.
but also to clarify i would have no problem with state level infrastructure programs and stimulus while im further concerned with bigger federal programs as it begins to get farm more complex.
Sure, there's absolutely a difference between running one off stimulus program, and running deficits year on year regardless of economic conditions. The former is good, the latter very bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: If the economy tanks, it doesn't really matter how much money a corporation has. Without new revenue to support it, it goes out of business, period. So... where again is the need to hold onto the money?
The economy doesn't tank, and just collapse into a brutal world of looting, scavenging, and assless chaps. That's just nonsense.
Instead, the economy just sucks for a while. Profits decline and maybe you make some losses. Sales growth declines, and maybe goes negative. But you hunker down and your company gets through it. Lots of people are unemployed (including maybe some laid off by your company) and many people struggle, and it sucks and maybe it sucks for as long as ten years but it does end.
Unless your company is following the Vulcan school of management theory, and just starts splashing a billion dollars out there in pay increases, on the assumption that all that money will come back. Then that company learns that oh dear, it's only 1% of the economy (if its a particularly massive company) and it only gets back $10 million of the billion it paid out. That makes the profits (or losses) $990 million worse than they would have, and that quickly puts the company into a position that it won't be able to sustain for the ten odd years of poor economic times.
Do you get it know? Or are you just going to keep playing games so you can pretend you had it all figured out?
Desubot wrote: I don't have any reason to believe that the number will be low. But nor do i have any reason to believe that the numbers will be high ether. as long as the program can create more successes that can cover the cost (by that mean from the addition potential created business, jobs and taxes gained) i wouldn't have a problem with it. but without hard numbers and only going based on futures, it is basically gambling, and gambling with the taxpayers money at that (should the government have such a right? though i feel this may be a bit OT)
But we do this right now. This 'gambling' you're talking about is exactly what the public education system does right now. It's just that instead of just 'gambling' on the kids in the middle class, it's gambling on every kid born in the country.
My other worry is that with what would be a flood of people in the system, the quality of service could be impacted, as it already is in the states, especially in public schools.
No, it's not about new people into the system. Everyone gets an education now, there will be no new people who previously never got an education suddenly becoming part of the system.
It's about giving the kids already in the system as good a standard of education, whether they're born in poor or middle class areas.
is the potentially lowering the standards be a good thing overall? especially for our doctors and engineers?
It isn't lowering the standard. It's investing the money to make sure everyone gets the same high standard. Which means more people get the education that makes it possible for them to become doctors and engineers. Which means a greater pool competing for college educations in medicine and engineering, which means the medical and engineering schools can be more selective and pick better candidates, which means the standard of medicine and engineering improves.
But the US public education is open for everyone not just the middle class i don't recall any child being denied entrance. and with that we currently do have overcrowded school rooms with not enough teachers, which can diminish the quality of education with less and less one on one attention to those who need it to clarify what i meant about lowering standards. (depending on what district your in)
Edit: probably should clarify that i do not support the current public school system, not because its a bad idea, only in its execution which is my problem with alot of these programs in general (But this is a general statement)
Desubot wrote: But the US public education is open for everyone not just the middle class i don't recall any child being denied entrance. and with that we currently do have overcrowded school rooms with not enough teachers, which can diminish the quality of education with less and less one on one attention to those who need it to clarify what i meant about lowering standards. (depending on what district your in)
Of course they're not excluded entirely. But students born to poorer parents will typically go to a school in a poorer area, which is typically much more poorly funded than schools in wealthy areas, which means they generally receive a much lower overall standard of education... which makes it much harder for a child of equal or even greater talent to become an engineer or doctor than a child born in to a middle class family.
I mean, how many times do you want me to explain that?
And the point of the whole thing, start to finish, is that you spend the money to equalise education - spend the money so that poor areas have as much spend on education per child as wealthier areas. That doesn't mean more overcrowding (a claim you've been repeating, and I've been constantly pointing out makes no sense). It doesn't mean lowering standards. It means giving a kid born into a poor area as high a much of an education as middle class kids are currently getting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Plus, the US public system isn't exactly renowned for being one of the best in the world, is it?
It is in a lot of ways unfairly attacked. Truth is there system is middle of the pack, with some unique strengths (excellent systems for high achievers to excel, and excellent systems to help struggling students catch up) and some unique weaknesses (the funding model is county based, so wealthy counties are overflowing with money and poor counties are massively underfunded). But you can say that about most any system.
Desubot wrote: But the US public education is open for everyone not just the middle class i don't recall any child being denied entrance. and with that we currently do have overcrowded school rooms with not enough teachers, which can diminish the quality of education with less and less one on one attention to those who need it to clarify what i meant about lowering standards. (depending on what district your in)
Of course they're not excluded entirely. But students born to poorer parents will typically go to a school in a poorer area, which is typically much more poorly funded than schools in wealthy areas, which means they generally receive a much lower overall standard of education... which makes it much harder for a child of equal or even greater talent to become an engineer or doctor than a child born in to a middle class family.
I mean, how many times do you want me to explain that?
And the point of the whole thing, start to finish, is that you spend the money to equalise education - spend the money so that poor areas have as much spend on education per child as wealthier areas. That doesn't mean more overcrowding (a claim you've been repeating, and I've been constantly pointing out makes no sense). It doesn't mean lowering standards. It means giving a kid born into a poor area as high a much of an education as middle class kids are currently getting.
I though i was making the point that quality and crowding happens depending on districts but whatever no need to explain
but what i am saying is that we already have programs like universal education and it gets fethed up because of bureaucracy.
simply injecting a system like this with more money (at least for the states) would just cause the same problems as most districts will have to redistribute all funds (if i recall correctly even direct donations to specific schools though i cant recall at least for my area) evenly even between poor and rich schools making it near impossible for poorer schools to expand and hire additional teachers.
I believe the only way to make it work is to reformed the entire education system in such a way to give a fair and balanced education to ALL students in any district. including the proper distribution of students to teachers and resources. at least that would be a great place to start the dialog.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Plus, the US public system isn't exactly renowned for being one of the best in the world, is it?
It is in a lot of ways unfairly attacked. Truth is there system is middle of the pack, with some unique strengths (excellent systems for high achievers to excel, and excellent systems to help struggling students catch up) and some unique weaknesses (the funding model is county based, so wealthy counties are overflowing with money and poor counties are massively underfunded). But you can say that about most any system.
If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.
Desubot wrote: I believe the only way to make it work is to reformed the entire education system in such a way to give a fair and balanced education to ALL students in any district.
That's what I said in the first place. Honest to God...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.
Bill Gates made money in computers, therefore Bill Gates is an expert on the strengths and weaknesses of various educational systems...
Seriously, international comparisons are made between countries constantly, and the results are studied by every country, each looking for a way to improve their own systems and get a leg up in international competition. The US doesn't do that badly.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.
Bill Gates made money in computers, therefore Bill Gates is an expert on the strengths and weaknesses of various educational systems...
Seriously, international comparisons are made between countries constantly, and the results are studied by every country, each looking for a way to improve their own systems and get a leg up in international competition. The US doesn't do that badly.
Microsoft hires a wide range of people - software designers, advertisers, business analysts etc. As an ex-CEO and as chairman of the company, he'd be interested in who he is recruiting. Currently, education is geared towards attaining jobs and if a large technology tech company doesn't feel that they can get the right people for their jobs, then there's an issue.
The US is 17th in the world for their education system. As the country that dominates the world, you should be doing a lot better. Hell, Singapore, a tiny island country, is at no. 5! Australia's is better! And at 18th is Hungary. Isn't that telling? (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html)
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Microsoft hires a wide range of people - software designers, advertisers, business analysts etc. As an ex-CEO and as chairman of the company, he'd be interested in who he is recruiting. Currently, education is geared towards attaining jobs and if a large technology tech company doesn't feel that they can get the right people for their jobs, then there's an issue.
Everyone who's ever run a company or just worked in the HR department of one is interested in who they recruit. By your definition they're all experts on international education standards.
The US is 17th in the world for their education system. As the country that dominates the world, you should be doing a lot better. Hell, Singapore, a tiny island country, is at no. 5! Australia's is better! And at 18th is Hungary. Isn't that telling? (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html)
Being a very large country doesn't mean it should be number one in everything. I don't know where in the hell you got that idea from. Instead, by the nature of being very large it will tend towards the middle. 17th in the world is - in the middle of the developed countries... which is exactly where I already said the US was.
Microsoft are located in the US. They have an interest in the US. They hire skilled people. If they find that they're recruiting more people from South Korea or Japan and less from the US, they'd probably think that their education is better than the US. I'm not stating they're experts on international education standards at all. But you can look at trends and see patterns. I read an article a while ago that said that in Asia there are few expats in top jobs in MNC. Why? Asian people are good enough for the job.
No, being a very large country doesn't mean you should be number one at everything. I never said that at all. The US is the strongest and most influential country in the world - that's undeniable. With an education system that's only 17th in the world, beaten by South Korea and Hong Kong, they may not be able to hold that position for much longer.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Microsoft are located in the US. They have an interest in the US. They hire skilled people. If they find that they're recruiting more people from South Korea or Japan and less from the US, they'd probably think that their education is better than the US. I'm not stating they're experts on international education standards at all. But you can look at trends and see patterns. I read an article a while ago that said that in Asia there are few expats in top jobs in MNC. Why? Asian people are good enough for the job.
You seriously going to sit there and claim that South Korea has an effective education system? Have you read anything about this at all? feth, have you even read this thread, because I've already been over that with another poster (long story short - a system with massive emphasis on rote learning and hours of study produces pupils that take exams very well, but are very poor at innovative or creative thinking).
And you might want to take a look at the idea of brain drain and the basic realities of relative scales of pay. There are very big reasons that high skilled workers drift from low income countries to high income countries, and it has exactly nothing to do with education being better quality in low income countries.
No, being a very large country doesn't mean you should be number one at everything. I never said that at all.
You said they should be doing better. As if being large somehow translated to delivering better results per capita. Which is nonsense.
The US is the strongest and most influential country in the world - that's undeniable. With an education system that's only 17th in the world, beaten by South Korea and Hong Kong, they may not be able to hold that position for much longer.
It doesn't work that way. fething hell, this is ridiculous.
I mean, go look at Hong Kong on a map. Notice that it is a very small island. Then consider what your claim that Hong Kong having a better education system might somehow cause the US to be toppled from top spot. Consider exactly how a better education system will change the basic reality that Hong Kong is a tiny island with 2 million people, and the US takes up half a continent and has 300 million people.
What about Finland? They've got the strongest education system in the world. They don't revolve around rote learning and hours of study. Neither does Switzerland, the UK, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Belgium. All these countries have better education systems than the US.
How are countries going to get highly skilled workers without a good education? Why do I see many highly skilled workers from Northern Europe and Asia instead of Africa? There's a lot of highly skilled workers in South Korea, Singapore and Japan. Rote learning and hours of study must produce good candidates!
Hong Kong actually has 7 million people officially living there (the number is probably a lot higher) and Kowloon is one of the many islands of Hong Kong. South Korea and Hong Kong placing in near-top spots for education is symbolic - Asia is on the rise.
I never said that because the US is a large country it should be doing better. Have you read my posts at all? I'll quote them here:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Plus, the US public system isn't exactly renowned for being one of the best in the world, is it?
It is in a lot of ways unfairly attacked. Truth is there system is middle of the pack, with some unique strengths (excellent systems for high achievers to excel, and excellent systems to help struggling students catch up) and some unique weaknesses (the funding model is county based, so wealthy counties are overflowing with money and poor counties are massively underfunded). But you can say that about most any system.
If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.
Bill Gates made money in computers, therefore Bill Gates is an expert on the strengths and weaknesses of various educational systems...
Seriously, international comparisons are made between countries constantly, and the results are studied by every country, each looking for a way to improve their own systems and get a leg up in international competition. The US doesn't do that badly.
Microsoft hires a wide range of people - software designers, advertisers, business analysts etc. As an ex-CEO and as chairman of the company, he'd be interested in who he is recruiting. Currently, education is geared towards attaining jobs and if a large technology tech company doesn't feel that they can get the right people for their jobs, then there's an issue.
The US is 17th in the world for their education system. As the country that dominates the world, you should be doing a lot better. Hell, Singapore, a tiny island country, is at no. 5! Australia's is better! And at 18th is Hungary. Isn't that telling? (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html)
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Microsoft are located in the US. They have an interest in the US. They hire skilled people. If they find that they're recruiting more people from South Korea or Japan and less from the US, they'd probably think that their education is better than the US. I'm not stating they're experts on international education standards at all. But you can look at trends and see patterns. I read an article a while ago that said that in Asia there are few expats in top jobs in MNC. Why? Asian people are good enough for the job.
No, being a very large country doesn't mean you should be number one at everything. I never said that at all. The US is the strongest and most influential country in the world - that's undeniable. With an education system that's only 17th in the world, beaten by South Korea and Hong Kong, they may not be able to hold that position for much longer.
Read my posts again. I'm not saying that Hong Kong can beat the US at all - you're misinterpreting my comment. I'm saying that if these two countries are beating the US, then they've got more serious problems ahead of them.
whembly wrote: People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...
The chief exec of the hospital I work at earns more in a day than I do in 3 weeks (plus other sources of income). I as a mid to low level employee have little in the way of a negotiating power to get a "fairer" wage given that I work solidly for 8 hours every day with no breaks (I am entitled to have breaks but there is too much work to do as there has been a hire freeze for quite a long time - even though we just hired a new chief exec... and several more managers...).
I've now completed an MSc and am looking to move into a job where I start on a wage almost twice that of what I make now, and it is still not a particularly high wage. And still nothing like the wage of the top levels of management of most companies.
The work they do isn't markedly harder than anything I do, so why is their time worth so much more than the average worker? Hell, why is it worth so much more than even the most highly skilled, educated and experienced workers?
Do you know that their work is or isn't harder? Who are you to judge what their job is worth? It may require additional experience that you simply don't have, experience they aquired through additional schooling or simply working in the field for 20+ years.
And you arn't the person that determines what your job is worth, the employer is who determines that. You are always free to leave your job if you don't think you are being paid enough to find another one.
I agree with Templar on this how the hell you know you can do their job and should be paid as much, are you responsible for X number of staff, projects, building floor, company wealth etc ? From my experience where I have been at the bottom and the top there are always people complaining about how much more they should earn as they believe their duties are just few tasks away from their manager and I tell you one thing, I wish you to be A Manager and see the coin from the other side and maybe with a good perception on the world it may open your eyes a little bit. Personally I am fed up with people winge about things like that and lets be honest, you want more wealth for your own gain without a care for anyone else, as soon as you get it you will stop complaining about unfairnes in life. it is always easy to winge then move your back and do something in life, I know as I have done it myself in my own life.
All in all you may be right and that manager is doing just a bit more and is getting 10 times more then you but thats life, you get that everywhere in some cases where undeserving morons are doing better in life then you but sitting at home and having a winge is not a solution. No one said it will be easy.
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
It's interesting peoples perception v the reality.
Sounds like this video was made by people who hate freedom.
What do you mean by this?
Freedom = Good
America = Freedom
Video was critical of america.
Therefore Video was critical of freedom
Therefore video was critical of good.
Therefore the video was, what good isn't.
What good isn't, is evil.
Hate is evil
Therefore evil is hate.
As already established, video is evil, therefore video is hate.
Video was about america, therefore video hates america.
America is freedom, therefore video hates freedom.
Cheesecat wrote: Not really a surprise to me (then again I really like sociology) meritocracy and the American Dream is somewhat of a myth (not to say it doesn't happen, look at Oprah), if you're born into a middle class family chances are you're going to be middle class for the rest of your life same with the
rich and poor.
I always though the American dream was to own a home have children and be able to live comfortably not get on Ophra level wealth and fame. Is become rich and famous rock stars and celebrity the new dream?
Pretty much, As a kid I wanted to be garbage truck driver, wanted to clean the world - wonder how many kids these days have the same dream
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
Amen!
So basically all the millions of people doing volunteer work when they could be working to increase their own income are actually all liars deluding themselves?
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.
Amen!
So basically all the millions of people doing volunteer work when they could be working to increase their own income are actually all liars deluding themselves?
I would not class ALL people to be the same, I assume you get exception to all rules but I am yet to meet in my life a human being with pure heart. Giving others shelter while he lifes under a bridge. Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are some like that and I wish there would be more people like it but unveiling the whole topic piece by piece is just opening a bottomless can of worms on which we can ponder for years to come )
Looking at the historical trends, the last ten years look an awful lot like the 1920s. Remember what came afterwards? That's what we're looking at if spending doesn't pick up... which it can't, until payroll picks up.
Anyone know offhand what percentage of businesses open in 1929 were still in operation five years later? It's a pretty low number.
And this time, the government is already neck-deep in debt so they can't bail us out. That means it will be worse this time around.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: What about Finland? They've got the strongest education system in the world. They don't revolve around rote learning and hours of study. Neither does Switzerland, the UK, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Belgium. All these countries have better education systems than the US.
Yes, and they have better systems. And now think about what I said - the US is a middle of the road system among the developed countries. If you'll think about that for half a second you'll realise that means that, holy crap!, some countries have stronger system. Middle of road means some countries are better than you.
It means some are better, and some are worse. It isn't a decisive national asset, but nor is it a decisive national problem. It's just... middle of the road.
How are countries going to get highly skilled workers without a good education?
And now you're confusing 'middle of the road' with 'incapable of producing skilled workers'. This is ridiculous. The US produces a large number of skilled workers. It'd be nice if they produced more, but it'd also be nice if they had a bullet train from Chicago to New York.
Claiming any of those things as the great problem that will cause the nation to fall from being the dominant nation in the world is just silly.
Why do I see many highly skilled workers from Northern Europe and Asia instead of Africa? There's a lot of highly skilled workers in South Korea, Singapore and Japan. Rote learning and hours of study must produce good candidates!
First up, European education systems are not noted for rote learning, the exact opposite is true.
Second up, producing more skilled workers than Africa isn't evidence of a good education system, it's evidence that your country is not the most impoverished country in the world.
Please just stop posting nonsense. You're making an arse of yourself.
South Korea and Hong Kong placing in near-top spots for education is symbolic - Asia is on the rise.
And people constantly confuse 'on the rise' with 'better systems'. When it actually means 'playing catch up, and steadily building systems that are as effective of those who currently have the best systems - evidenced by the high standard of living and rates of productivity in the developed world.
Read my posts again. I'm not saying that Hong Kong can beat the US at all - you're misinterpreting my comment. I'm saying that if these two countries are beating the US, then they've got more serious problems ahead of them.
I'm not misinterpreting your comment, I'm making fun of it, because it was silly. Not being #1 does not mean doomed to slide from power, because while education and skilled employees is important, it is not the only thing that determines who is #1. Otherwise Hong Kong's better education scores would see them fly to #1. As we all know that's stupid, it should encourage you to think of all the other things that actually determine what a #1 country has.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: And this time, the government is already neck-deep in debt so they can't bail us out. That means it will be worse this time around.
First up, the idea that the US government is in lots of debt now, but wasn't at the outbreak of the depression is completely wrong. Remember is history class how there was this thing called WWI? Well that cost a load of money, and people then claimed exactly what's being claimed now - government can't help because it's already got loads of debt. And debt has certainly been much higher than it is right now - like during WWII, and in the early 90s it was almost as high as it is now. Anyway, here's a chart so you can look and see how crazy your claim was;
The idea that the US government can't borrow any more is completely wrong. In fact, the cost of borrowing in the short term is almost zero, because investors are still falling all over themselves to buy up US govt bonds.
Second up, the recovery is in place. As long as nothing feths it up (which is not impossible, even if the US congress doesn't sabotage the recovery there's some chance the idiocy in Europe will be so severe that it costs the US) then the recovery will happen. Note above how I said short term borrowings are close to zero - that's because medium and long term borrowing rates are predicted to rise - because of the economic recovery that is slowly coming in to place.
Long story short - the stimulus wasn't enough to mitigate the GFC entirely, but it was good enough to stop the fall being as bad as it could have been, and now the US (thanks to ongoing deficit stimulus) is moving out of recession.
And I predict you'll ignore all of that, like you ignored my last explanation of your errors, because you want to believe what you want to believe.
Hmm. According to your chart there, we had a 15% (give or take a couple %) of GDP debt at the beginning of the Great Depression vs. over 65% of GDP now.
And while you can just handwave it away as 'believing what I want to believe', that seems like a VERY significant difference to me.
Add in our recent loss of a AAA credit rating, continued vast increases in spending projected into the next thirty years, and a government that simply cannot remember that 'compromise' is not a dirty word (all of which were nowhere near as big a problem in 1930) means that it's only a matter of time before the government can't borror any more, because it cannot pay the INTEREST on what it is borrowing - much less pay off the principle.
All of this means that in the 20-teens there will be no 'New Deal' spending out of the government to shore up a collapsing economy.
(I'd love to be wrong. I really would. If I'm right, America ends in my lifetime, in blood and chaos. It's quite likely that I - and everyone I know - will die horribly in that case. This is not something I want to see, just to be proved right. But the historical trends are pretty clear... if one bothers to look with open eyes. When the average is dirt-poor, social unrest and economic chaos ensues. Simple fact of history. And we're headed there.)
Vulcan wrote: (I'd love to be wrong. I really would. If I'm right, America ends in my lifetime, in blood and chaos. It's quite likely that I - and everyone I know - will die horribly in that case. This is not something I want to see, just to be proved right. But the historical trends are pretty clear... if one bothers to look with open eyes. When the average is dirt-poor, social unrest and economic chaos ensues. Simple fact of history. And we're headed there.)
Lol.
All I have to say is that Sebster appears to be the only intelligent one here.
Vulcan wrote: Hmm. According to your chart there, we had a 15% (give or take a couple %) of GDP debt at the beginning of the Great Depression vs. over 65% of GDP now.
And you're comparing the start of the Great Depression against now, in the wake of the GFC because...
Instead, look at the start of the Great Depression against the start of the GFC - 15% debt against 30% debt. And then look at how high debt got during WWII - in excess of 100% without any sign that that was the total possible limit to debt.
And then please actually do some thinking about your insistence that the US might suddenly hit the limit of how much it can borrow from the money market.
Add in our recent loss of a AAA credit rating,
That was a thing the media liked to pretend meant something, because the story on its face was a simple little narrative - Standard and Poors says US borrowing is out of control. Except to the actual bond markets the rating reduction meant absolutely nothing - the only change seen in the days following was the US government borrowing at even cheaper rates. To the market the US government remains the absolute safest place in the world to invest your money.
and a government that simply cannot remember that 'compromise' is not a dirty word (all of which were nowhere near as big a problem in 1930)
Any claim that the major works projects undertaken to lift the US out of the Great Depression shows a complete ignorance of history. The blue and red lines weren't drawn as sharply, but all that meant was that Dems were more likely to oppose efforts just as Reps were more likely to support them.
means that it's only a matter of time before the government can't borror any more,
That's not even slightly a thing. You see that WWII spike in debt, and you see how much higher it is than current US debt? Yeah...
And then when you realise that the US is borrowing at rates near zero, and you realise that really fething isn't the case for any organisation close to its borrowing limit? Yeah...
And then when you realise the idea of default makes no damn sense when you're talking about a country that prints its own money, which instead just transfers debt into inflation? Yeah...
because it cannot pay the INTEREST on what it is borrowing - much less pay off the principle.
Government bonds don't work like that. Instead they are sold at a (market determined) discount, and are a future promise to pay $100. That is, while the rate of interest can be calculated based on the price the bond is sold for in the market, the interest and principle are all paid in one go, so it becomes a total whackjob nonsense to claim that one could pay interest but not debt, or vice versa.
Seriously, please just learn, come at this from an actual position of knowledge. Stop just guessing at how things maybe work.
All of this means that in the 20-teens there will be no 'New Deal' spending out of the government to shore up a collapsing economy.
All of which relies on an assumption that the economy is still collapsing. Which is a total load of nonsense in direct contradiction to the economic indicators.
Stop making gak up.
(I'd love to be wrong. I really would.
You are wrong. Totally, completely 100% wrong. So be happy about that.
If I'm right, America ends in my lifetime, in blood and chaos. It's quite likely that I - and everyone I know - will die horribly in that case. This is not something I want to see, just to be proved right. But the historical trends are pretty clear... if one bothers to look with open eyes.
But you're not. You're trading on half understood economic knowledge, picking out the little bits that sound scary and making up a fantasy of doom and disaster in your head. That sounds like an exciting, scary world to be part of, I mean, I love apocalypse stories as much as the next nerd, but it has nothing to do with the real world.
