Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:Just out of curiosity, if luck is such a dominating element of success

Let me put a linear graph on my opinions on this post.

(-∞)<------Biccat's view to my posted opinions-----> (∞)

(-∞)<------What I actually posted about my opinions-----> (∞)

Notice that they're not only two entirely different points, but not even on the same line. I know you love using strawmen to attempt to attack, but this is just eyeroll-inducing.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:Notice that they're not only two entirely different points, but not even on the same line. I know you love using strawmen to attempt to attack, but this is just eyeroll-inducing.

Right.

Melissia wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Hard work isn't a sure path to success, but it is certaintly the most likely.
Yes, just like purchasing multiple lottery tickets and having different numbers on each one is the most likely way to win there, too.

Still unlikely.

You're the one comparing "success" to winning the lottery here.

**Melissia**

It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.

If you count 30k a year as "success", then I suppose I'd just say you have very low standards. The USA has some of the most productive and intelligent workers in the world-- a nation renowned amongst the west for working hard and taking very little vacation time. But this hard work is rewarded-- or compensated for, if you prefer-- less than in other, less hard working countries.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.

Except for the last couple of years, this is false. The poor have been doing pretty well, and the rich have been appropraitely screwed.

Obviously the solution is to improve the economy, but the White House has been going in the wrong direction for the past 3 years (yes, I'm including the tail end of the Bush administration).

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.

If you count 30k a year as "success", then I suppose I'd just say you have very low standards. The USA has some of the most productive and intelligent workers in the world-- a nation renowned amongst the west for working hard and taking very little vacation time. But this hard work is rewarded-- or compensated for, if you prefer-- less than in other, less hard working countries.

When I gradumenated more gooder I started out at $24K and all the spare change I could find. I thought it was all the money in the world.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.

If you count 30k a year as "success", then I suppose I'd just say you have very low standards. The USA has some of the most productive and intelligent workers in the world-- a nation renowned amongst the west for working hard and taking very little vacation time. But this hard work is rewarded-- or compensated for, if you prefer-- less than in other, less hard working countries.

When I gradumenated more gooder I started out at $24K and all the spare change I could find. I thought it was all the money in the world.

Yeah, I'd be able to live off of that-- probably, if I found a cheap rental. But my only real monthly luxury is my internet access.

But I still wouldn't WANT to live off of it...

**Tigerone**

I can't understand how anyone would want to live life and go around thinking that it's all or mostly luck?!?

Be prepared, work hard, and hope for a little luck. Recognize that the harder you work and the better prepared you are, the more luck you might have.
Ed Bradley

When is the last time you heard someone like a Tom Brady or any other champion say "Well we kinds screwed around this week in practice but we got by today on luck"

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazz what year was that 1956?

**SlaveToDorkness**

Perhaps the people in the "impoverished" states would rather be poor than Democrats?

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
That included everything a working person would pay for - food, rent, gas, utilities, etc. The only difference was that my 'job' was going to school.

Where did you go to school? In St. Paul 9k was scraping by, and would have been untenable without board.

biccat wrote:
I don't think that's out of line. Only a very few (10%, tops, even that is generous) is really "wealthy" while top-end estimates of "poor" never cross 20%. I think that saying 70% of the U.S. is in the middle class is at least a defensible number. I think you could even get up to 75-80% before the numbers are unrealistic.

I would argue that the "wealthy" class is much larger than many people believe. I mean, I would consider myself wealthy at this point, if only because I have actual wealth in the economic sense and I certainly don't pull down 350k per anum. I think what constitutes middle class in much of the developed world has been skewed very far from the original meaning of the term.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Except for the last couple of years, this is false. The poor have been doing pretty well, and the rich have been appropraitely screwed.

That's bad analysis, he's using a metric based on FTE, which doesn't generally consider capital gains. Of course the middle class, regardless of definition, would out perform the top 5%.

**Melissia**

Something that's mostly connected:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/republican-nomination-1

It's actually kinda funny to read (go from the bottom of the blog-- just above the comments), more than anything. Figured it'd make the topic a bit lighter.

**sebster**

I can't help but notice you're posting a lot in this thread, Tigerone. As a busy CEO, shouldn't you be showing loads of hardwork and dedication to ensure you remain a CEO, and not fething about on an internet forum?

Melchiour wrote:I think this speaks volumes. WHEN I WAS A POOR PERSON, my thoughts were never about how will politician A B and C help me, it was how do I save myself.

When you talk about self-reliance to help yourself out of poverty, it is an admirable personal value. When you twist that idea into an excuse to avoid helping others, you're just being an donkey-cave.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tigerone wrote:So it was not hot in Texas pre 1970?

So we shouldn't bother to make things better than they were in 1970?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The prevailing opinion here is that anyone who is successful is lucky. You can't dissuade certain posters of that.

It's more a recognition that lucks plays a part in personal circumstances. This is less an opinion and more a recognition of the blindingly obvious.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If luck is an important element of success, are people more lucky today than they were 100 years ago? The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?

The greatly improved sophistication of society. I tried to explain the importance of society to you in generating individual wealth in another thread, and you just posted incoherent nonsense for about four pages. I see you're beginning to understand now, though.

You might ask 'where's the luck in that?' and I'd ask you to consider the luck in being born in the developed world, and not in Somalia.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:I can't help but notice you're posting a lot in this thread, Tigerone. As a busy CEO, shouldn't you be showing loads of hardwork and dedication to ensure you remain a CEO, and not fething about on an internet forum?

**WarOne**

dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:I can't help but notice you're posting a lot in this thread, Tigerone. As a busy CEO, shouldn't you be showing loads of hardwork and dedication to ensure you remain a CEO, and not fething about on an internet forum?

Maybe he is the CEO of the internet. Al Gore had to appoint someone to oversee his creation anyway.

Jeez...sometimes I think dogma and sebster are one and the same person....

**dogma**

biccat wrote:If luck is an important element of success, are people more lucky today than they were 100 years ago? The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?

Good, God-fearing, hard-working Americans of course!

But, seriously, I was unaware that success and high standards of living were interchangeable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:
Jeez...sometimes I think dogma and sebster are one and the same person....

Nah, he's nice, I'm not.

**mattyrm**

Melissia wrote:Something that's mostly connected:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/republican-nomination-1

It's actually kinda funny to read (go from the bottom of the blog-- just above the comments), more than anything. Figured it'd make the topic a bit lighter.

The economist is a great magazine. I might not be as well read as some of the more bookish members of the forum, but I read that every chance I get. The mobile app for android is excellent as well by the way.

This article is very pertinent to this discussion.

http://www.economist.com/node/21530104

The Economist

Hunting the rich
The wealthy will have to pay more tax. But there are good and bad ways to make them do so

HE horns have sounded and the hounds are baying. Across the developed world the hunt for more taxes from the wealthy is on. Recent austerity budgets in France and Italy slapped 3% surcharges on those with incomes above €500,000 ($680,000) and €300,000 respectively. Britain’s Tories are under attack for even considering getting rid of Labour’s “temporary” 50% top rate of income tax on earnings of over £150,000 ($235,000). Now Barack Obama has produced a new deficit-reduction plan that aims its tax increases squarely at the rich, including a “Buffett rule” to ensure that no household making more than $1m a year pays a lower average tax rate than “middle-class” families do (Warren Buffett has pointed out that, despite being a billionaire, he pays a lower average tax rate than his secretary). Tapping the rich to close the deficit is “not class warfare”, argues Mr Obama. “It’s math.”

Actually, it’s not simply math (or indeed maths). The question of whether to tax the wealthy more depends on political judgments about the right size of the state and the appropriate role for redistribution. The maths says deficits could technically be tamed by spending cuts alone—as Mr Obama’s Republican opponents advocate. Class warfare may be a loaded term, but it captures a fundamental debate in Western societies: who should suffer for righting public finances?

eviathan should bear the brunt

In general, this newspaper’s instincts lie with small government and against ever higher taxation to pay for an unsustainable welfare state. We reject the notion, implicit in much of today’s debate, that higher tax rates on the wealthy are justified because of the finance industry’s role in the crunch: retribution is a poor rationale for taxation. Nor is the current pattern of contribution to the public purse obviously “unfair”: the richest 1% of Americans pay more than a quarter of all federal taxes (and fully 40% of income taxes), while taking less than 20% of pre-tax income. And knee-jerk rich-bashing, like Labour’s tax hike, seldom makes for good policy. High marginal tax rates discourage entrepreneurship, and no matter how much Mr Obama mentions “millionaires and billionaires”, higher taxes on them alone cannot close America’s deficit.

So the debate is poisonously skewed. But there are three good reasons why the wealthy should pay more tax—though not, by and large, in the ways that the rich world’s governments currently propose.

First, the West’s deficits should not be closed by spending cuts alone. Public spending should certainly take the brunt: there is plenty of scope to slim inefficient Leviathan, and studies of past deficit-cutting programmes suggest they work best when cuts predominate. Britain’s four-to-one ratio is about right. But, as that ratio implies, experience also argues that higher taxes should be part of the mix. In America the tax take is historically low after years of rate reductions. There, and elsewhere, tax rises need to bear some of the burden.

Second, there is a political argument for raising this new revenue from the rich. Spending cuts fall disproportionately on the less well-off; and, even before the crunch, median incomes were stagnating. Meanwhile, globalisation has been rewarding winners ever more generously. Voters’ support for ongoing austerity depends on a disproportionate share of any new revenue coming from the wealthy.

But how? So far most governments have focused on raising marginal income-tax rates, something most rich people respond to quickly (see article). Capitalists shift their income into less-taxed forms, such as capital gains; they move; they work less; they take fewer entrepreneurial risks. Even if it is hard to be sure how big these effects are, the size of the very top level seems to matter, so Britain’s 50% rate is more dangerous than Mr Obama’s proposal to raise America’s top federal income-tax rate from 35% to 39.6%. Somebody earning $1m pays more tax in London than any other financial capital—madness for a place with so many mobile rich people. The excuse that it was worse in the 1970s hardly inspires confidence.

Simpler, bolder, better

Given the rich world’s need for faster growth, governments should be wary of sharp tax increases—especially since they are unnecessary. Indeed, the third argument for raising more money from the rich is that it can be done not by increasing marginal tax rates, but by making the tax code more efficient.

The scope for doing so is most obvious in America, which relies far more than other countries on income taxes and has a mass of deductions on everything from interest payments on mortgages to employer-provided health care, so taxes are levied on a very narrow base. Getting rid of the deductions would simplify the code and raise as much as $1 trillion a year. Since the main beneficiaries of the deductions are the wealthy, richer folk would pay most of that. And since marginal rates would be untouched (or reduced), such a reform would do less to discourage them from creating wealth.

In Europe, where tax systems are more efficient, one option would be to shift more of the burden from income to property, which would collect more from the rich but have less impact on their willingness to take risks. The “mansion tax” proposed by Britain’s Liberal Democrats would thus do less damage than the 50% rate. And on both sides of the Atlantic there is room to narrow the gap between tax rates on salaries and bonuses and those on dividends and capital gains. That gap explains why Mr Buffett, most of whose income comes from capital gains and dividends, has a lower average tax rate than his secretary. It is also the one hedge funders and private-equity people have exploited to keep the billions they rake in.

There is a basic bargain to be had. Imagine a tax system which made the top rates on wages and capital more equal, and which eliminated virtually all deductions. To avoid taxing investments twice, such a system would get rid of corporate taxes. It would also allow for a much lower top rate of income tax. The result? A larger overall tax take from the rich, without hurting the dynamism of the economy. Now that would be worth blowing your horn about.

In essence I have always agreed with a fairer system, but there is a happy medium and that Is what we must strive for. Sure the rich could pay a little more tax, but I don't believe in robbing people that work hard for their money. My brother makes $200,000 a year, but he works 70 hours a week easy. I earn $40,000 a year but have no stress and work about 25 hours a week. The left have an extremely narrow minded view (people like MGS) which basically involves taking as much money from the rich as possible, because they feel that they somehow "deserve" it.

But the fact remains that there are work around's, and if the government started flagrantly taking the piss, I would do everything in my power to feth the system. Why do poor people have such a sense of entitlement? Why do they feel they deserve all of the wealthy people's money?

I am a working class lad, but I side with the rich. My Mum died when I was 9, by dad is a welder and Im from fething Middlesbrough! The location (North east England) is traditionally poor, and very left leaning as a result. The highest percentage of people here are left leaning dyed in the wool labour voters. And they are class warriors that to me have a very narrow minded view, and despite the fact I am working class I agree with them very little. I wont support something just because it benefits me if I believe it is morally wrong. Which is odd, because 99% of people seem to not behave like that, if it means more "stuff" for them, then they will support it, even if it is obviously unjust.

This is ironic, because I like to think of myself as a proper bastard, and I try really hard to be one. I feel a conscience is something I would be better off without, but it is still there trying to assert itself.

I dont feel comfortable taking things I don't feel I have earned. When I left the corps and was looking for work, I never signed up for job seekers allowance because I wasn't comfortable with going into the dole office. My grandmother was incredulous and said "You have paid into the system, why not take something out?" but I wasn't comfortable with the idea and I lived off my savings. I guess the RM instilled that into me.

The point of this whole post is better illustrated by the article above. Sure the rich can pay a little more, but lets strive for balance, and not take the piss outrageously, because they just don't deserve it, and frankly, neither do we.

**sebster**

mattyrm wrote:The economist is a great magazine.

It really is. Let down only by my inability to ever find an article again after I've read it. I see stuff here on dakka that an Economist study disproved, and I go to find the article and I can never find it again.

In essence I have always agreed with a fairer system, but there is a happy medium and that Is what we must strive for. Sure the rich could pay a little more tax, but I don't believe in robbing people that work hard for their money. My brother makes $200,000 a year, but he works 70 hours a week easy. I earn $40,000 a year but have no stress and work about 25 hours a week. The left have an extremely narrow minded view (people like MGS) which basically involves taking as much money from the rich as possible, because they feel that they somehow "deserve" it.

Pretty much. I think there's basic level of practicality that should define most of the tax debate - the state simply needs to raise revenue somewhere between a quarter and a third of total revenue, and taking that much off the poorer elements of society will impose a burden that anyone with any understanding of living on a low income and any kind of empathy wouldn't accept - this basically means the rich need to pay more. At the same time, we have to be wary of taxing the rich too heavily, because if the top marginal rate is too great it discourages people.

Unfortunately it seems a very large number of people don't really worry about anything like practically waying the benefits and costs of different approaches. Instead they decide to either hate the rich, or hate the poor, and just keep on supporting whatever politician makes the right noise about doing something to spite the group they've decided to hate.

**Melissia**

I noticed some weasel wording in that Economist post, though. They said the deficit could be "tamed" by cuts alone-- even that's kinda arguable-- but not reduced or eliminated. Which is true, it won't ever be eliminated or even reduced without increased revenue of some sort. Just "tamed", IE, stop it from growing.

I also like the Economist. Don't always agree with their views, but they're at least intelligently stated.

**AlmightyWalrus**

mattyrm wrote:
Why do poor people have such a sense of entitlement? Why do they feel they deserve all of the wealthy people's money?

I think part of it (at least currently) is that some CEOs get obscene amounts of money. Normal (as in, non-CEOs) people then get upset because they don't feel that the CEOs deserve the obscene salaries that they get even though they're not adding any concrete to the society.

**Melissia**

And frequently they're just driving their companies down the drain while trying to appease stockholders, then retiring with multi-million dollar benefits packets despite being a failure of a CEO.

But then again, the rich get arguably more handouts than the poor do given the nature of US politics, so...

**Chongara**

Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.

If you count 30k a year as "success", then I suppose I'd just say you have very low standards. The USA has some of the most productive and intelligent workers in the world-- a nation renowned amongst the west for working hard and taking very little vacation time. But this hard work is rewarded-- or compensated for, if you prefer-- less than in other, less hard working countries.

When I gradumenated more gooder I started out at $24K and all the spare change I could find. I thought it was all the money in the world.

Unfortunately things have changed since then, a recent graduate has to spend money on things like electricity and those newfangled horseless carriages. Also a person does have to have some fun, you may not know it but those talkies aren't cheap.

**dogma**

Melissia wrote:I noticed some weasel wording in that Economist post, though. They said the deficit could be "tamed" by cuts alone-- even that's kinda arguable-- but not reduced or eliminated. Which is true, it won't ever be eliminated or even reduced without increased revenue of some sort. Just "tamed", IE, stop it from growing..

So you read what you wanted to read, rather than what was written.

**Melissia**

dogma wrote:
Melissia wrote:I noticed some weasel wording in that Economist post, though. They said the deficit could be "tamed" by cuts alone-- even that's kinda arguable-- but not reduced or eliminated. Which is true, it won't ever be eliminated or even reduced without increased revenue of some sort. Just "tamed", IE, stop it from growing..

So you read what you wanted to read, rather than what was written.

More like the Economist writes specifically to push their libertarian views. Claim I'm reading too much into it if you want, but the magazine DOES have a political stance, even if it's tied to neither party. It's a high quality paper, but it's still a paper written by humans

**dogma**

Melissia wrote:More like the Economist writes specifically to push their libertarian views.

The Economist isn't Libertarian by any measure.

Melissia wrote:
Claim I'm reading too much into it if you want, but the magazine DOES have a political stance, even if it's tied to neither party. It's a high quality paper, but it's still a paper written by humans

Well, there's a difference between contributors having political stances, and the magazine itself having a political stance.

**frgsinwntr**

dogma wrote:
Melissia wrote:More like the Economist writes specifically to push their libertarian views.

The Economist isn't Libertarian by any measure.

Melissia wrote:
Claim I'm reading too much into it if you want, but the magazine DOES have a political stance, even if it's tied to neither party. It's a high quality paper, but it's still a paper written by humans

Well, there's a difference between contributors having political stances, and the magazine itself having a political stance.

I think melissa is right on this... the majority of its contributors will inherently give a political slant to the magazine by volume of articles that are slanted if nothing else. I'm not so sure you can argue it otherwise.

**dogma**

Connor McKane wrote:
70% of the 10 Poorest Districts are Democrat while 70% of the 10 richest Districts are Republican.

So, what you're saying is that you only looked at Congressional representative, and not Presidential or Senatorial elections?

Connor McKane wrote:
3. WV-03 (Nick Rahall, D) - Southern West Virginia: Huntington, Beckley, Princeton, Bluefield, Williamson, Oak Hill.
Demographics: 94.4% White; 4.1% Black; 0.9% Other; 0.6% Hispanic; 0.4% Asian; 0.2% Native American.
Median Household Income: $25,630
2008 Election Results: John McCain (R) 55.76% - Barack Obama (D) 42.29%.
CPVI: R+6

10. LA-02 (Joseph Cao, R) - New Orleans, Kenner, Marrero, Timberlane, Estelle.
Demographics: 64.1% Black; 30.2% White; 3.8% Hispanic; 2.7% Asian; 2.6% Other; 0.3% Native American.
Median Household Income: $27,514
2008 Election Result: Barack Obama (D) 74.13% - John McCain (R) 24.86%.
CPVI: D+25

5. NJ-07 (Leonard Lance, R) - South Plainsfield, Scotch Plains, Cranford, Westfield, Roselle.
Demographics: 83.4% White; 8.2% Asian; 6.9% Hispanic; 4.6% Black; 3.6% Other; 0.1% Native American.
Median Household Income: $74,823
2008 Election Result: Barack Obama (D) 51.16% - John McCain (R) 47.69%.
CPVI: R+3

9. IL-13 (Judy Biggert, R) - Chicago Suburbs: Naperville, Bolingbrook, Downers Grove, Westmont, Woodridge, Orland Park
Demographics: 84.9% White; 6.6% Asian; 5.5% Hispanic; 5.0% Black; 3.3% Other; 0.1% Native American.
Median Household Income: $71,686
2008 Election Result: Barack Obama (D) 54.21% - John McCain (R) 44.60%.
CPVI: R+1

10. IL-10 (Mark Kirk, R) - Chicago Suburbs: North Chicago, Waukegan, Highland Park, Northbrook, Buffalo Grove, Arlington Heights, Glenview.
Demographics: 81.2% White; 12.3% Hispanic; 7.2% Other; 5.9% Asian; 5.4% Black; 0.2% Native American.
Median Household Income: $71,663
2008 Election Result: Barack Obama (D) 60.92% - John McCain (R) 38.13%.
CPVI: D+6

Its almost like political analysis took effort.

**Phototoxin**

I'm not reading through 5 pages - but technically in the UK I'm 'relatively poor' as I don't own a television..

**Tigerone**

sebster wrote:I can't help but notice you're posting a lot in this thread, Tigerone. As a busy CEO, shouldn't you be showing loads of hardwork and dedication to ensure you remain a CEO, and not fething about on an internet forum?

Melchiour wrote:I think this speaks volumes. WHEN I WAS A POOR PERSON, my thoughts were never about how will politician A B and C help me, it was how do I save myself.

When you talk about self-reliance to help yourself out of poverty, it is an admirable personal value. When you twist that idea into an excuse to avoid helping others, you're just being an donkey-cave.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tigerone wrote:So it was not hot in Texas pre 1970?

So we shouldn't bother to make things better than they were in 1970?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The prevailing opinion here is that anyone who is successful is lucky. You can't dissuade certain posters of that.

It's more a recognition that lucks plays a part in personal circumstances. This is less an opinion and more a recognition of the blindingly obvious.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If luck is an important element of success, are people more lucky today than they were 100 years ago? The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?

The greatly improved sophistication of society. I tried to explain the importance of society to you in generating individual wealth in another thread, and you just posted incoherent nonsense for about four pages. I see you're beginning to understand now, though.

You might ask 'where's the luck in that?' and I'd ask you to consider the luck in being born in the developed world, and not in Somalia.

6000 plus posts vs less than 100? I took yesterday and today off....Maybe that has something to do with the difference in POV.

**halonachos**

Tigerone wrote:6000 plus posts vs less than 100? I took yesterday and today off....Maybe that has something to do with the difference in POV.

I would say point for Tigerone on this. He's been registered longer but has 92(atm) posts compared to sebster's 6,942(atm), couple that with the fact that, that means Tigerone has posted only 1.33% of what sebster has posted. I would take a guess that sebster has something to do with college(professor, student, or janitor), or just likes to post in the off-topic forum and only in the off-topic forum.

Being born isn't luck, its genetics. So with that, poverty is hereditary and I am away on this one.

**biccat**

sebster wrote:
biccat wrote:If luck is an important element of success, are people more lucky today than they were 100 years ago? The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?

The greatly improved sophistication of society. I tried to explain the importance of society to you in generating individual wealth in another thread, and you just posted incoherent nonsense for about four pages. I see you're beginning to understand now, though.

I believe I recall that conversation. It involved you trying to convince me that only the fabulously wealthy are better off now than in the 1960's.

We may be recalling different threads, however.

**halonachos**

$100,000 a year was a big salary back then and it is still a big salary. If you can't live off of a $100,000 salary, you have issues. $60,000 a year is about average IIRC.