Languish.org

Saw this on facebook.


http://beingliberal.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-3?g=2 (http://beingliberal.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-3?g=2)


Assuming it is accurate, and I don't see any reason to believe it is not, I don't think anyone really thinks this is a reasonable state to be in. And well, the article itself makes that clear - over 90% of Americans think this is far, far, FAR from ideal.


Assuming we could muster the political will to fix it in principle, how could you fix it in a practical sense? What kind of legislation would a smart government enact to slowly (or not so slowly) adjust this back to where we as a society would like it to be?


I honestly don't know the answer.

I do have a quibble unfortunately. The presentation was talking about wealth, I would much rather it talked about income.

I have a good example in my family. Both of my grandfathers worked in the coal industry and for the latter 20 years of their working lives it was a nationalised industry with fixed payrates. But, one family had no wealth whatsoever, every payday they would go wild and blow it in the next 4 days. The other had modest but by no means irrelevant wealth, including a paid for house and savings.

Anecdote over. The point being that making wealth more equal requires far more intrusive action by the state than action which makes wages more equal.

Income disparity isn't as large though.

My proposal would be to raise capital gains taxes.

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 12:24:08 AM
Assuming we could muster the political will to fix it in principle, how could you fix it in a practical sense? What kind of legislation would a smart government enact to slowly (or not so slowly) adjust this back to where we as a society would like it to be?

You just do it.  Pass a confiscatory tax on wealth, then redistribute the proceeds.  Then keep doing it whenever anyone accumulates too much.

Higher, more progressive tax rates would seem the simplest answer.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 12:52:39 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 12:24:08 AM
Assuming we could muster the political will to fix it in principle, how could you fix it in a practical sense? What kind of legislation would a smart government enact to slowly (or not so slowly) adjust this back to where we as a society would like it to be?

You just do it.  Pass a confiscatory tax on wealth, then redistribute the proceeds.  Then keep doing it whenever anyone accumulates too much.

That is a terrible idea.

That is the kind of idea designed to make it seem like the problem cannot be solved in a reasonable manner.

Why is it a terrible idea?   :huh:

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 01:02:01 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 12:52:39 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 12:24:08 AM
Assuming we could muster the political will to fix it in principle, how could you fix it in a practical sense? What kind of legislation would a smart government enact to slowly (or not so slowly) adjust this back to where we as a society would like it to be?

You just do it.  Pass a confiscatory tax on wealth, then redistribute the proceeds.  Then keep doing it whenever anyone accumulates too much.

That is a terrible idea.

That is the kind of idea designed to make it seem like the problem cannot be solved in a reasonable manner.

The American economy seemed to function in the 50-60s, even with a high tax rate. The Germans and Swedes seem to do okay now too. It all depends on what society is willing to bear.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2013, 01:00:08 AM
Higher, more progressive tax rates would seem the simplest answer.

No, actually it would be a stunningly stupid answer.

The wealthy did not get wealthy because their taxes were too low, but because our economic system is failing at distributing generated wealth.

The wealthy can stand to have taxes raised on them because they have such a huge share of the wealth, but that isn't the reason it became that way, and it is a horrifically bad idea to try to fix the problem in that manner.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2013, 01:09:36 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 01:02:01 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 12:52:39 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 12:24:08 AM
Assuming we could muster the political will to fix it in principle, how could you fix it in a practical sense? What kind of legislation would a smart government enact to slowly (or not so slowly) adjust this back to where we as a society would like it to be?

You just do it.  Pass a confiscatory tax on wealth, then redistribute the proceeds.  Then keep doing it whenever anyone accumulates too much.

That is a terrible idea.

That is the kind of idea designed to make it seem like the problem cannot be solved in a reasonable manner.

The American economy seemed to function in the 50-60s, even with a high tax rate. The Germans and Swedes seem to do okay now too. It all depends on what society is willing to bear.

I am not saying we should not raise taxes, but that isn't a solution to this problem.

I would almost rather continue down this path rather than try to ahve the government achieve income distribution via such a blunt tool as taxation.

Government by its very nature is a blunt tool. The government doesn't do subtlety, and looking for anything other than simple answer to a problem, however complex that problem is, will end in nothing but disappointment.

You could theoretically require everyone to save more or less the same amount, but that would still leave the problem of the existing distribution.  Much easier to just grab it and hand it out.

Saying taxation is the answer is like saying that the only way to stop people from smoking is to take their cigarettes.

Your analogy mystifies me.

Yi's suggestion is the only workable one. The alternative is to somehow restructure the entire economy to insure that the results match some pre-defined desirable wealth distribution rate. Even the Euro countries that are/were big on everyone making the same amount of money (think Sweden in the days when you could pay more than 100% of income in tax) did so by taxation after the fact.

Of course the real answer is Berkut, after finished gorging on a few hours worth of articles at Salon.com rolled through Whole Foods and made himself a vegan black-bean truffle infused burrito with a side of fair trade soy milk and then opened up the DailyKos for the day and found another mindless leftist screed to vomit all over the forums.

Wealth inequality is simply put, unimportant. A properly functioning economy is going to give outsize rewards to some, wealth inequality is important in developing countries where those who aren't in the 1% are fighting over blades of grass to eat. In a developed country, as long as prosperity and general wealth are going up for the average individual in society then it doesn't matter how much more Mitt Romney makes than you. I think we've had this exact same conversation before, but generally suffice to say people are better off (across all economic bands) today than they were in 1980 or 1990. They'll probably be better off in 2020 than they were in 2000.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 25, 2013, 12:38:44 AM
I do have a quibble unfortunately. The presentation was talking about wealth, I would much rather it talked about income.

I have a good example in my family. Both of my grandfathers worked in the coal industry and for the latter 20 years of their working lives it was a nationalised industry with fixed payrates. But, one family had no wealth whatsoever, every payday they would go wild and blow it in the next 4 days. The other had modest but by no means irrelevant wealth, including a paid for house and savings.

Anecdote over. The point being that making wealth more equal requires far more intrusive action by the state than action which makes wages more equal.

I was thinking the same thing.

As much as the present situation is ugly, I cannot see how you can have a healthy economy without also being able to create similarly shocking graphs on wealth. Compare the wealth of a factory owner and his workers and OMG TEH DISPARITY!!!

Also, how much of that excess wealth is in stocks and stuff? How much of it would be simply melt away together with the stock market? How much disparity is there in terms of REAL stuff? Like properties and stuff?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 02:16:15 AM
I think we've had this exact same conversation before, but generally suffice to say people are better off (across all economic bands) today than they were in 1980 or 1990. They'll probably be better off in 2020 than they were in 2000.

Is that so? You often read how real incomes have stagnated or declined etc.

Quote from: Tamas on July 25, 2013, 02:27:30 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 25, 2013, 12:38:44 AM
I do have a quibble unfortunately. The presentation was talking about wealth, I would much rather it talked about income.

I have a good example in my family. Both of my grandfathers worked in the coal industry and for the latter 20 years of their working lives it was a nationalised industry with fixed payrates. But, one family had no wealth whatsoever, every payday they would go wild and blow it in the next 4 days. The other had modest but by no means irrelevant wealth, including a paid for house and savings.

Anecdote over. The point being that making wealth more equal requires far more intrusive action by the state than action which makes wages more equal.

I was thinking the same thing.

As much as the present situation is ugly, I cannot see how you can have a healthy economy without also being able to create similarly shocking graphs on wealth. Compare the wealth of a factory owner and his workers and OMG TEH DISPARITY!!!

The US has had a healthy economy in the past without similar disparity. There are countries with healthy economies right now that don't have disparities like that right now.

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 06:40:05 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 02:16:15 AM
I think we've had this exact same conversation before, but generally suffice to say people are better off (across all economic bands) today than they were in 1980 or 1990. They'll probably be better off in 2020 than they were in 2000.

Is that so? You often read how real incomes have stagnated or declined etc.

Otto is wrong of course.  The wider the gap in wealth and income the harder it is to jump that gap which means a more stratified society and less entrepreneurial activity.  The result is stagnation.

I know Berkut is ignoring me, but I'm uncertain the origin of his horror at the idea of taxation.  Someone should ask him.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2013, 07:18:19 AM
I know Berkut is ignoring me, but I'm uncertain the origin of his horror at the idea of taxation.  Someone should ask him.

There.  Now he'll see it.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGW7ONeA.jpg&hash=238240d1c4216ec72c7f6c701fa9369471f09a58)

I don't have any problem with taxation of course.

I jsut don't think it is the solution to the problem that the US has experienced in the last 30 years or so.

It isn't the source of the problem, and it isn't the right way to solve it either.

Taxation, simply put, has nothing to do with the problem. Trying to solve it by applying a tool that is not related to the issue is simply not going to work.

It is interesting that both the nutbar elements hold it up as the only possible way of even thinking about the issue though. The nutbar right holds it up as this fake solution so they can dismiss it, and the nutbar left thinks it is the only thing that matters.

We have radically increased income disparity in the US over the last few decades. That didn't happen because of reduced taxes on the wealthy made them incredibly wealthy. That cannot possibly explain an order of magnitude increase in total share of the wealth. There is a systemioc problem with the way we allocate resources outside the tax system.

It is interesting that both the nutbar sides willfully ignore what I post in favor of just trying to score political points. Raise taxes on the wealthy? Go right ahead, I am all for it. But do so because we need more revenue, and the welathy are best able to afford it without harming growth overall. *That* is the purpose of taxes.

Dealing with the fact that there is a recent and completely new thing happening in the US economy where we've gotten ourselves into this robber baron like situation where the super rich are taking more and more and more of the overall slice of the nations wealth while everyone else stagnates needs to be addressed by addressing whatever systemic problem has created that situation.

Whether the super rich pay 28% or 34% is not relevant to why they went from having 8% of the nations wealth to 40% of it.

iiirc, didn't (or do) the countries in South America (and probably most of Africa) have similar graphs of wealth-distribution? And for most of their existence (or at least previous 100 years).
A situation that everyone could see was/is unhealthy and unstable.

while income disparity needs to exist and while there will always be people who are rich or poor it seems to me that -as a society- you'd like to avoid a situation as presented in the OP.

Quote from: Tamas on July 25, 2013, 02:27:30 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 25, 2013, 12:38:44 AM
I do have a quibble unfortunately. The presentation was talking about wealth, I would much rather it talked about income.

I have a good example in my family. Both of my grandfathers worked in the coal industry and for the latter 20 years of their working lives it was a nationalised industry with fixed payrates. But, one family had no wealth whatsoever, every payday they would go wild and blow it in the next 4 days. The other had modest but by no means irrelevant wealth, including a paid for house and savings.

Anecdote over. The point being that making wealth more equal requires far more intrusive action by the state than action which makes wages more equal.

I was thinking the same thing.

As much as the present situation is ugly, I cannot see how you can have a healthy economy without also being able to create similarly shocking graphs on wealth. Compare the wealth of a factory owner and his workers and OMG TEH DISPARITY!!!

That is stunningly stupid Tamas.

The issue is not "OMG TEH DISPARITY" the issue is "Holy shit, the disparity has grown radically in the very recent past, and is now grossly, obscenely greater than it has been at any point ever, is getting worse, and pretty much everyone agrees that it is far out whack with what is healthy for a society, and further, most people know that it is out of whack, think it is a problem, and yet don't even realize that it is actually vastly MORE out of whack than even they think".

Acting like this is just the standard grumbling that the not rich don't have as much as the rich is almost willfully ignorant. I am all for a "OMG TEH DISPARITY" in income/wealth distribution.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 25, 2013, 08:06:56 AM

while income disparity needs to exist and while there will always be people who are rich or poor it seems to me that -as a society- you'd like to avoid a situation as presented in the OP.

I am simply stunned that people are actually arguing that the situation is fine.

I am perfectly ok with income disparity. I am ok with even more than what the article laid out as what most people (including Republicans) think is "ideal".

I am kind of amazed that the argument being put forth is not just that this is ok, but that by extension *any* wealth disparity is ok. Because if an amount of disparity that is literally 100 times more than it was, and 100 times more than what 9/10 people consider is ideal is a-ok, then clearly there is no amount of disparity that is unacceptable.

Let's go back a couple of steps.  Share of wealth graph can be misleading.  We need to look at the growth rates of wealth of each quintile over many years, including years before the obvious shift started.  On which end do you actually have a shift?  Is it the reach accumulating the wealth at ever-increasing rates, the poor accumulating the wealth at decreasing rates (or even negative rates), or a combination of both?

Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2013, 07:18:19 AM

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 06:40:05 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 02:16:15 AM
I think we've had this exact same conversation before, but generally suffice to say people are better off (across all economic bands) today than they were in 1980 or 1990. They'll probably be better off in 2020 than they were in 2000.

Is that so? You often read how real incomes have stagnated or declined etc.

Otto is wrong of course.  The wider the gap in wealth and income the harder it is to jump that gap which means a more stratified society and less entrepreneurial activity.  The result is stagnation.

Aren't there a hell of a lot of small businesses? Is the idea then that they are all going under?

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 08:26:45 AM
Let's go back a couple of steps.  Share of wealth graph can be misleading.  We need to look at the growth rates of wealth of each quintile over many years, including years before the obvious shift started.  On which end do you actually have a shift?  Is it the reach accumulating the wealth at ever-increasing rates, the poor accumulating the wealth at decreasing rates (or even negative rates), or a combination of both?

Those are all very good questions.

But they are questions that go to addressing what is happening and why.

What I find amazing is that apparently there are people who look at the outcome and say "Yeah, that is cool."

I don't even think the people who are that 1% look at this result and think "Yep, that is how it should be..."

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:36:26 AM
Aren't there a hell of a lot of small businesses? Is the idea then that they are all going under?

Small businesses are not exactly a highway to riches.  Most of the time it's a life of subsistence.

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 08:37:30 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 08:26:45 AM
Let's go back a couple of steps.  Share of wealth graph can be misleading.  We need to look at the growth rates of wealth of each quintile over many years, including years before the obvious shift started.  On which end do you actually have a shift?  Is it the reach accumulating the wealth at ever-increasing rates, the poor accumulating the wealth at decreasing rates (or even negative rates), or a combination of both?

Those are all very good questions.

But they are questions that go to addressing what is happening and why.

What I find amazing is that apparently there are people who look at the outcome and say "Yeah, that is cool."

I don't even think the people who are that 1% look at this result and think "Yep, that is how it should be..."

You need to know why something happened before you can come up with good fixes.

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 08:40:35 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:36:26 AM
Aren't there a hell of a lot of small businesses? Is the idea then that they are all going under?

Small businesses are not exactly a highway to riches.  Most of the time it's a life of subsistence.

So is the notion that we should all have riches?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2013, 01:09:36 AM
The American economy seemed to function in the 50-60s, even with a high tax rate.

I don't think historic tax rates are necessarily comparable to tax rates today. For example, all personal interest used to be deductible. If I got that deduction today, I could likely reduce my tax burden, even if facing significantly higher tax rates.

What is probably a better judge of taxation levels is the percentage of tax / GDP, and the corresponding percentages of tax paid / income for each segment of the population.

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 08:37:30 AM
What I find amazing is that apparently there are people who look at the outcome and say "Yeah, that is cool."

I don't even think the people who are that 1% look at this result and think "Yep, that is how it should be..."

Sure they are.  The system is working precisely as it should.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2013, 09:03:40 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 08:37:30 AM
What I find amazing is that apparently there are people who look at the outcome and say "Yeah, that is cool."

I don't even think the people who are that 1% look at this result and think "Yep, that is how it should be..."

Sure they are.  The system is working precisely as it should.

Do you even realize that your attitude is as much a part of the problem as Otto's?

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 09:06:22 AM
Do you even realize that your attitude is as much a part of the problem as Otto's?

Just because I acknowledge it doesn't mean I endorse it like Otto does.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:47:23 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 08:40:35 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:36:26 AM
Aren't there a hell of a lot of small businesses? Is the idea then that they are all going under?

Small businesses are not exactly a highway to riches.  Most of the time it's a life of subsistence.

So is the notion that we should all have riches?

No.

Came across this the other day. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aei-ideas.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2F0723213mobility.jpg&hash=9442c5d66ccbdd98e5c2a6ddfb7942718173fe69)

The answer seems to be a combination of fracking and mormonism.  :hmm:

Man.  Bad to be poor in the South.

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 09:33:16 AM
Man.  Bad to be poor in the South.

States and regions that care about the appropriate funding their public school systems do better than those that don't.  Imagine that.

Deep South is in Deep Shit.  Again.  Is there any human development category it actually isn't deep red on?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2013, 09:35:17 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 09:33:16 AM
Man.  Bad to be poor in the South.

States and regions that care about the appropriate funding their public school systems do better than those that don't.  Imagine that.

Ugh look at those abortions that are Indiana and Ohio.

Quote from: Jacob on July 25, 2013, 09:30:45 AM
Came across this the other day. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aei-ideas.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2F0723213mobility.jpg&hash=9442c5d66ccbdd98e5c2a6ddfb7942718173fe69)

So apparently the easy way to guarantee upward mobility is to live on top of shale oil deposits. :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 09:36:34 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2013, 09:35:17 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 09:33:16 AM
Man.  Bad to be poor in the South.

States and regions that care about the appropriate funding their public school systems do better than those that don't.  Imagine that.

Ugh look at those abortions that are Indiana and Ohio.

Faded rustbelt areas like metro Ohio and Michigan and that whacky progressive state known as Indiana stopped caring about their school systems years ago.

Just curious what is a good number for this?  10%?  15%?

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 08:41:09 AM
You need to know why something happened before you can come up with good fixes.

That is very hard to do.  There are lots of variables to track and there isn't any way to re-reun history as a controlled experiment.

The problem if anything is understated.  It is not just that there is a consistent long-dated trend of increasing income *and* wealth dispersion.  Money incomes of working class strata are actually stagnant and over some periods declining.  And most studies to examine the question also report findings that social mobility (measured in economic terms) has declined. (EDIT Thanks Jake for the map)  This is not a sustainable trend in a democracy.  People can tolerate a certain degree of inequality if they have some reasonable hope that their children can rise to the top.  But if that hope seems improbable, eventually there will be a reaction.

I agree with Berkut that redistribution by taxation seems less than optimal as a solution that treats symptoms over causes.  But I admit I don't have a better solution to offer.  But one thing to keep in mind is that the income and wealth flows we see are not the result of some open system of free competition.  The American economy is laden with distortions to competition and subsidies both open and hidden.  Exactly how this impacts ultimate flows of income and assets and hard to say with precision.  But one could take a guess.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2013, 09:32:15 AM
The answer seems to be a combination of fracking and mormonism.  :hmm:

SLC doesn't seem to fare much better than SF.

My local school district is quite good, and well-funded.

Quote from: derspiess on July 25, 2013, 09:43:38 AM
My local school district is quite good, and well-funded.

And therein we can see the root of one of the problems.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 09:42:51 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2013, 09:32:15 AM
The answer seems to be a combination of fracking and mormonism.  :hmm:

SLC doesn't seem to fare much better than SF.

It must be that big city living is eroding the strength of their faith.

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 09:42:23 AM
Just curious what is a good number for this?  10%?  15%?

I'm curious too.  Seems like 10% is a reasonable number, but looking at just US can skew our perspective.  Obviously it has to be less than 20% in a stable environment (with no shale oil and such), since otherwise that would imply that a top fifth are getting regularly dekulakized.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2013, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 09:42:51 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2013, 09:32:15 AM
The answer seems to be a combination of fracking and mormonism.  :hmm:

SLC doesn't seem to fare much better than SF.

It must be that big city living is eroding the strength of their faith.

I have read that SLC is becoming much more cosmopolitan than it used to be, and more like the rest of the country...

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 09:49:20 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 09:42:23 AM
Just curious what is a good number for this?  10%?  15%?

I'm curious too.  Seems like 10% is a reasonable number, but looking at just US can skew our perspective.  Obviously it has to be less than 20% in a stable environment (with no shale oil and such), since otherwise that would imply that a top fifth are getting regularly dekulakized.

Perhaps but I think this might obscure more than it helps. After all, if you just need 10% then looking at the map, there isn't a social mobility problem for most of the nation. ;)

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 09:50:37 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2013, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 09:42:51 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2013, 09:32:15 AM
The answer seems to be a combination of fracking and mormonism.  :hmm:

SLC doesn't seem to fare much better than SF.

It must be that big city living is eroding the strength of their faith.

I have read that SLC is becoming much more cosmopolitan than it used to be, and more like the rest of the country...

They did have more gay bars than I expected when I visited.

I'm assuming the Ohio one will get less red as the shale oil and gas ramps up in the northeast corner of the state.

Rather than taxation, it seems to me that we should be looking at the other kinds of benefits that the super-wealthy have essentially "purchased" from our government - subsidies, loopholes, exceptions that are tacked on as riders to bills, etc. - through hardcore lobbying. If people want a capitalist system, then the rules need to be fairly applied to everyone.

Doesn't it stand to reason that if you want to fix a gross inequality the best thing to do is start cleaning up corruption?

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 09:50:37 AM
I have read that SLC is becoming much more cosmopolitan than it used to be, and more like the rest of the country...

It has a growing tech industry going on there at the moment. Max applied to a number of jobs out that way.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2013, 09:42:31 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 08:41:09 AM
You need to know why something happened before you can come up with good fixes.

That is very hard to do.  There are lots of variables to track and there isn't any way to re-reun history as a controlled experiment.

The problem if anything is understated.  It is not just that there is a consistent long-dated trend of increasing income *and* wealth dispersion.  Money incomes of working class strata are actually stagnant and over some periods declining.  And most studies to examine the question also report findings that social mobility (measured in economic terms) has declined. (EDIT Thanks Jake for the map)  This is not a sustainable trend in a democracy.  People can tolerate a certain degree of inequality if they have some reasonable hope that their children can rise to the top.  But if that hope seems improbable, eventually there will be a reaction.

I agree with Berkut that redistribution by taxation seems less than optimal as a solution that treats symptoms over causes.  But I admit I don't have a better solution to offer.  But one thing to keep in mind is that the income and wealth flows we see are not the result of some open system of free competition.  The American economy is laden with distortions to competition and subsidies both open and hidden.  Exactly how this impacts ultimate flows of income and assets and hard to say with precision.  But one could take a guess.

Has anyone done a similar type of study for Canada? My impression is that the situation is nowhere near as severe up here, but I lack hard data.

Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2013, 11:08:59 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2013, 09:42:31 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 08:41:09 AM
You need to know why something happened before you can come up with good fixes.

That is very hard to do.  There are lots of variables to track and there isn't any way to re-reun history as a controlled experiment.

The problem if anything is understated.  It is not just that there is a consistent long-dated trend of increasing income *and* wealth dispersion.  Money incomes of working class strata are actually stagnant and over some periods declining.  And most studies to examine the question also report findings that social mobility (measured in economic terms) has declined. (EDIT Thanks Jake for the map)  This is not a sustainable trend in a democracy.  People can tolerate a certain degree of inequality if they have some reasonable hope that their children can rise to the top.  But if that hope seems improbable, eventually there will be a reaction.

I agree with Berkut that redistribution by taxation seems less than optimal as a solution that treats symptoms over causes.  But I admit I don't have a better solution to offer.  But one thing to keep in mind is that the income and wealth flows we see are not the result of some open system of free competition.  The American economy is laden with distortions to competition and subsidies both open and hidden.  Exactly how this impacts ultimate flows of income and assets and hard to say with precision.  But one could take a guess.

Has anyone done a similar type of study for Canada? My impression is that the situation is nowhere near as severe up here, but I lack hard data.

Who cares about Canada? :unsure:

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 11:10:17 AM

Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2013, 11:08:59 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2013, 09:42:31 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 08:41:09 AM
You need to know why something happened before you can come up with good fixes.

That is very hard to do.  There are lots of variables to track and there isn't any way to re-reun history as a controlled experiment.

The problem if anything is understated.  It is not just that there is a consistent long-dated trend of increasing income *and* wealth dispersion.  Money incomes of working class strata are actually stagnant and over some periods declining.  And most studies to examine the question also report findings that social mobility (measured in economic terms) has declined. (EDIT Thanks Jake for the map)  This is not a sustainable trend in a democracy.  People can tolerate a certain degree of inequality if they have some reasonable hope that their children can rise to the top.  But if that hope seems improbable, eventually there will be a reaction.

I agree with Berkut that redistribution by taxation seems less than optimal as a solution that treats symptoms over causes.  But I admit I don't have a better solution to offer.  But one thing to keep in mind is that the income and wealth flows we see are not the result of some open system of free competition.  The American economy is laden with distortions to competition and subsidies both open and hidden.  Exactly how this impacts ultimate flows of income and assets and hard to say with precision.  But one could take a guess.

Has anyone done a similar type of study for Canada? My impression is that the situation is nowhere near as severe up here, but I lack hard data.

Who cares about Canada? :unsure:

Well, as a somewhat analogous country that can be used as a basis of comparison --- you should.  :P

Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2013, 11:11:26 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 11:10:17 AM

Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2013, 11:08:59 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2013, 09:42:31 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 08:41:09 AM
You need to know why something happened before you can come up with good fixes.

That is very hard to do.  There are lots of variables to track and there isn't any way to re-reun history as a controlled experiment.

The problem if anything is understated.  It is not just that there is a consistent long-dated trend of increasing income *and* wealth dispersion.  Money incomes of working class strata are actually stagnant and over some periods declining.  And most studies to examine the question also report findings that social mobility (measured in economic terms) has declined. (EDIT Thanks Jake for the map)  This is not a sustainable trend in a democracy.  People can tolerate a certain degree of inequality if they have some reasonable hope that their children can rise to the top.  But if that hope seems improbable, eventually there will be a reaction.

I agree with Berkut that redistribution by taxation seems less than optimal as a solution that treats symptoms over causes.  But I admit I don't have a better solution to offer.  But one thing to keep in mind is that the income and wealth flows we see are not the result of some open system of free competition.  The American economy is laden with distortions to competition and subsidies both open and hidden.  Exactly how this impacts ultimate flows of income and assets and hard to say with precision.  But one could take a guess.

Has anyone done a similar type of study for Canada? My impression is that the situation is nowhere near as severe up here, but I lack hard data.

Who cares about Canada? :unsure:

Well, as a somewhat analogous country that can be used as a basis of comparison --- you should.  :P

Is this like how we should be able to learn something from Sweden with a pop of 9 million?

Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 09:37:08 AM

Quote from: Jacob on July 25, 2013, 09:30:45 AM
Came across this the other day. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aei-ideas.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2F0723213mobility.jpg&hash=9442c5d66ccbdd98e5c2a6ddfb7942718173fe69)

So apparently the easy way to guarantee upward mobility is to live on top of shale oil deposits. :hmm:

I posted that shit two days ago.

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201102/how-economic-inequality-is-damaging-our-social-structure

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:01:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2013, 11:08:59 AM
Has anyone done a similar type of study for Canada? My impression is that the situation is nowhere near as severe up here, but I lack hard data.

Funny you should mention that.  One of the blogs I review pretty regularly is Worthwhile Canadian Iniative - it's written by a group of Canadian economists.  I usually skim over the heavy Canadian-centric articles, which typically involve stuff like what the Bank of Canda is doing.    But today's post happened to link to an interesting and pertinent paper that gathered about 300 years of macro-data on wealth-income ratios.  One of the findings is a big increase in Canadian wealth-income ratios since 1970.  That's only a part of the picture of course.

The paper is worth reading for historical interest alone, you can find a link to it here: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2013/07/does-the-end-of-growth-mean-the-rise-of-inequality.html#more.  For example, it shows that in 1770, ownership of slaves accounted for about 1/4 of all private wealth in the United States.  However, abolition was accompanied by only a small decrease in the wealth-income ratio: housing and other domestic capital quickly took up the slack. The French chart is also interesting: not surprisingly private wealth during the 18th century consisted primarily of holdings of agricultural land.  More surprising, the French Revolution seems to have moderated the decline in the significance of land to total wealth.  It isn't until 1850 that land as a form of wealth goes into serious decline, but not because of any huge relative growth in private captial formation - rather there is a significant increase in stockpiling foreign assets.

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:01:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. :D But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:21:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:01:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. :D But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

None of those are "real" problems in the sense that they aren't actually the problems that stem from inequality (I might be making less of a real salary then someone did in a similar role years ago, but my quality of life is still pretty high so I'd be hard pressed to note that as a problem). I think my link did better at actual problems that individuals/society faces.

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:21:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:01:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. :D But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

Sounds like wealth distribution is a symptom, not a cause.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:21:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:01:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. :D But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

None of those are "real" problems in the sense that they aren't actually the problems that stem from inequality (I might be making less of a real salary then someone did in a similar role years ago, but my quality of life is still pretty high so I'd be hard pressed to note that as a problem). I think my link did better at actual problems that individuals/society faces.

I've made it about halfway through the article to which you linked, but it seems to be offering the more-detailed version of exactly what I said. :huh:

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:29:40 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:21:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:01:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. :D But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

Sounds like wealth distribution is a symptom, not a cause.

It's a symptom of inequality which seems to have been caused by a slow purchase of the lawmaking process by corporate interests for about 30 years now, yes.

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:31:28 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:29:40 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:21:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:01:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. :D But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

Sounds like wealth distribution is a symptom, not a cause.

It's a symptom of inequality which seems to have been caused by a slow purchase of the lawmaking process by corporate interests for about 30 years now, yes.

Just trying to make sure people don't fix a symptom.

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:31:28 PM
It's a symptom of inequality which seems to have been caused by a slow purchase of the lawmaking process by corporate interests for about 30 years now, yes.

How dare you critisize free speech :angry:

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:34:49 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:31:28 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:29:40 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:21:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:01:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. :D But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

Sounds like wealth distribution is a symptom, not a cause.

It's a symptom of inequality which seems to have been caused by a slow purchase of the lawmaking process by corporate interests for about 30 years now, yes.

Just trying to make sure people don't fix a symptom.

Well, that's why I was suggesting earlier (and I see, reading back through, that I missed a post where JR was arguing essentially the same thing) that the solution isn't necessarily more progressive taxation on the rich but rather fixing the laws and culture that have allowed the system to be run this way. Yi pointed out that fixing the structural issues wouldn't address the *current* inequality; it would only help to mitigate future inequality. I think the people advocating taxation as a solution are trying to address the current inequality without seeing how it fails to prevent the same-old-same-old in the future.

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 12:35:24 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:31:28 PM
It's a symptom of inequality which seems to have been caused by a slow purchase of the lawmaking process by corporate interests for about 30 years now, yes.

How dare you critisize free speech :angry:

Yeah, I love how people at the top of the corporate ladder have been twisting and perverting one of our most cherished national principles for their own ends like that.

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:30:39 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:21:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:01:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. :D But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

None of those are "real" problems in the sense that they aren't actually the problems that stem from inequality (I might be making less of a real salary then someone did in a similar role years ago, but my quality of life is still pretty high so I'd be hard pressed to note that as a problem). I think my link did better at actual problems that individuals/society faces.

I've made it about halfway through the article to which you linked, but it seems to be offering the more-detailed version of exactly what I said. :huh:

Actually, and I scrolled down closer to the bottom (as again most of that article said what you said which isn't really the problems per se) which speaks to declines in self-worth and increases in mortality. That's where the problems lie for society moreso than fewer people are now able to own their homes.

The poor aren't getting poorer, that's why there isn't actually a problem here. People can't point to countries like Venezuela or pre-Revolution Cuba, because wealth inequality is materially different in its societal impact on OECD/Developed countries versus developing countries. There has been some argument that real wages have "stagnated" in the U.S., but they've really more or less kept up with inflation since 1980. We went over this in another thread, and I pointed out that something no one on the left wants to admit is those wages even while they have not moved much relative to inflation actually buy more and better stuff now than anyone could buy in 1980.

Everything from super power computers, cheap cars better than the nicest Ferrari from Magnum P.I., and medical procedures and treatments people in 1980 would have killed for; this idea that the poor are getting poorer is largely unproven, and just accepted as an article of faith. [Wages haven't even truly been stagnant, average real wages are up 10% from the 70s and median wages are up 4%.]

So your argument is that as long as the non-rich do not get less non-rich in non-relative terms, it is ok if the structure of our society concentrates all increases in wealth and income into the top 1 or 2% of society, ad infinitum?

So 100 years from now, the top 1% can own 90% of the nations wealth, and as long as people still aren't worse off in a non-relative sense than they are right now, that would be perfectly fine, or rather, why there "isn't an actual problem".

And can we reverse that?

Could we say, I don't know, 150 years ago, that if everyone today was only as well off as they were 150 years ago, but the wealthiest 1% owned 99% of the wealth, that would be ok as well, since the only way there is a problem is if the non-uber rich have an actual decline in practical standard of living over some nominal period of time?

What is special about whatever point in time you decide that the baseline for "this is how good the non-super rich should ever have it" to be set at? Why should we conclude that whatever the non-uber rich had in absolute terms of standard of living had prior to this latest radical increase in relative wealth concentration was a point at which they should just be happy if it doesn't actually go down?


Of course there is a real problem. The real problem is that throughout all human history, mankind has continued to become more and more efficient and capable of producing wealth. For some reason, in the US over the last several decades, while we have seen that trend continue (or even accelerate) the resulting created wealth has almost entirely gone to only a tiny elite class, while 99% of society has not enjoyed a reasonable share (or any share depending on what number you look) of that increase.

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 09:42:23 AM
Just curious what is a good number for this?  10%?  15%?

In a perfect meritocratic society where everybody has the same starting chance in life, you would expect 20% of the lowest quintile to reach the top quintile.

Another fun map. :)

How many hours would someone need to work at minimum wage to afford a two-bedroom apartment in their state?

(https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4f70df85595659000300006e/attachments/min_wage_housing_-_776.png)

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 01:54:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 09:42:23 AM
Just curious what is a good number for this?  10%?  15%?

In a perfect meritocratic society where everybody has the same starting chance in life, you would expect 20% of the lowest quintile to reach the top quintile.

Aka a society that'll never happen (/sounds like a nightmare) as people higher up the ladder aren't going to want such instability for their children.

Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 01:56:32 PM
Another fun map. :)

How many hours would someone need to work at minimum wage to afford a two-bedroom apartment in their state?

How does that define "afford"?  Surely other living expenses are added into that.

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 09:37:08 AM

Quote from: Jacob on July 25, 2013, 09:30:45 AM
Came across this the other day. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aei-ideas.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2F0723213mobility.jpg&hash=9442c5d66ccbdd98e5c2a6ddfb7942718173fe69)

So apparently the easy way to guarantee upward mobility is to live on top of shale oil deposits. :hmm:

Can't that be read also as some of the bluer regions having less difference between bottom and top quintiles? Getting to the top quintile in some of the bigger metro areas (NY, LA) must be pretty fucking difficult, no matter how many opportunities you have, while the same in Bumfuck, ND, should be much easier.

Maybe it'd be much more instructive to have the same map but with the middle quintile as target, rather than the top one.

Working 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey? That's the American Dream. :)

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:01:30 PM
Working 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey? That's the American Dream. :)

I don't know why a person on a minimum wage would have a 2 bedroom.

Quote from: The Larch on July 25, 2013, 02:01:12 PM
Can't that be read also as some of the bluer regions having less difference between bottom and top quintiles? Getting to the top quintile in some of the bigger metro areas (NY, LA) must be pretty fucking difficult, no matter how many opportunities you have, while the same in Bumfuck, ND, should be much easier.

Maybe it'd be much more instructive to have the same map but with the middle quintile as target, rather than the top one.

Except I think it is quntiles on a national level. Hence the text in grey about how top 5th is determined.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 01:57:07 PM
Aka a society that'll never happen (/sounds like a nightmare) as people higher up the ladder aren't going to want such instability for their children.

It will obviously never happen as it is impossible to achieve same starting chance in life.

But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

Quote from: The Larch on July 25, 2013, 02:01:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 09:37:08 AM

Quote from: Jacob on July 25, 2013, 09:30:45 AM
Came across this the other day. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aei-ideas.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2F0723213mobility.jpg&hash=9442c5d66ccbdd98e5c2a6ddfb7942718173fe69)

So apparently the easy way to guarantee upward mobility is to live on top of shale oil deposits. :hmm:

Can't that be read also as some of the bluer regions having less difference between bottom and top quintiles? Getting to the top quintile in some of the bigger metro areas (NY, LA) must be pretty fucking difficult, no matter how many opportunities you have, while the same in Bumfuck, ND, should be much easier.

Maybe it'd be much more instructive to have the same map but with the middle quintile as target, rather than the top one.

Read the map. The quintile definitions are not changed by locale.

Which can be looked at as a bit silly in and of itself. Even the rich in 3rd world hellholes like Georgia only make like, $14/hour. I think.

$14.50.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:03:08 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:01:30 PM
Working 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey? That's the American Dream. :)

I don't know why a person on a minimum wage would have a 2 bedroom.

So that they don't have to share a bedroom with all of their kids? :unsure:

So the top quintile is the same everywhere but the bottom quintile depends on the area?

Why should someone stupid enough to have multiple kids while earning only the minimum wage expect anything other than abject misery in life?

Quote from: Habbaku on July 25, 2013, 01:59:41 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 01:56:32 PM
Another fun map. :)

How many hours would someone need to work at minimum wage to afford a two-bedroom apartment in their state?

How does that define "afford"?  Surely other living expenses are added into that.

http://www.upworthy.com/how-many-minimum-wage-work-hours-does-it-take-to-afford-a-2-bdrm-apartment-in-yo?g=2

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 02:10:22 PM
Why should someone stupid enough to have multiple kids while earning only the minimum wage expect anything other than abject misery in life?

Yes, because as we've seen here on Languish, no one ever loses their high-paying jobs and are forced to look for lower-wage positions. Once you have that high-flying gig, you're set for life!

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:04:21 PM
But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

If I had children, I wouldn't want to have to watch them fail.

Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 02:08:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:03:08 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:01:30 PM
Working 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey? That's the American Dream. :)

I don't know why a person on a minimum wage would have a 2 bedroom.

So that they don't have to share a bedroom with all of their kids? :unsure:

I don't know why they would think they should be raising children on a minimum wage. They barely have enough (/not enough) money to take care of themselves.

Quote from: The Larch on July 25, 2013, 02:10:09 PM
So the top quintile is the same everywhere but the bottom quintile depends on the area?

It is just for the purposes of the comparison as obviously the top 5th in New York is different from Macon, Georgia. And no both are fixed on that map, I believe.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:12:52 PM
I don't know why they would think they should be raising children on a minimum wage. They barely have enough (/not enough) money to take care of themselves.

Yet millions do.

Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 02:11:11 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on July 25, 2013, 01:59:41 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 01:56:32 PM
Another fun map. :)

How many hours would someone need to work at minimum wage to afford a two-bedroom apartment in their state?

How does that define "afford"?  Surely other living expenses are added into that.

http://www.upworthy.com/how-many-minimum-wage-work-hours-does-it-take-to-afford-a-2-bdrm-apartment-in-yo?g=2

Moving to Wyoming is looking pretty good about now.

Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 02:12:07 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 02:10:22 PM
Why should someone stupid enough to have multiple kids while earning only the minimum wage expect anything other than abject misery in life?

Yes, because as we've seen here on Languish, no one ever loses their high-paying jobs and are forced to look for lower-wage positions. Once you have that high-flying gig, you're set for life!

:rolleyes:

At the same time, I think everyone knows that minimum wage isn't going to be enough to live comfortably with multiple children.

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 02:14:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:12:52 PM
I don't know why they would think they should be raising children on a minimum wage. They barely have enough (/not enough) money to take care of themselves.

Yet millions do.

An entirely different discussion.

Quote from: The Larch on July 25, 2013, 02:01:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 09:37:08 AM
So apparently the easy way to guarantee upward mobility is to live on top of shale oil deposits. :hmm:

Can't that be read also as some of the bluer regions having less difference between bottom and top quintiles? Getting to the top quintile in some of the bigger metro areas (NY, LA) must be pretty fucking difficult, no matter how many opportunities you have, while the same in Bumfuck, ND, should be much easier.

Maybe it'd be much more instructive to have the same map but with the middle quintile as target, rather than the top one.

But NYC for example has a pretty decent rate of upward mobility.

No, the dark blue areas coincide very nicely with the areas undergoing a boom due to shale fracking.

By the way I think you'd get a similar effect in parts of Alberta.  Working in the oil patch = money.  You have plenty of farm kids pulling in incomes higher than mine.  You'd easily be in the top quintile if you work in the patch.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 02:14:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:12:52 PM
I don't know why they would think they should be raising children on a minimum wage. They barely have enough (/not enough) money to take care of themselves.

Yet millions do.

An entirely different discussion.

I don't think it is. In fact, I think it's definitely part of the discussion. If those making minimum wage cannot afford to live by themselves, how can we expect families to survive when they're forced into those jobs? That is, I think, exactly what this discussion is about.

Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 02:19:17 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 02:14:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:12:52 PM
I don't know why they would think they should be raising children on a minimum wage. They barely have enough (/not enough) money to take care of themselves.

Yet millions do.

An entirely different discussion.

I don't think it is. In fact, I think it's definitely part of the discussion. If those making minimum wage cannot afford to live by themselves, how can we expect families to survive when they're forced into those jobs? That is, I think, exactly what this discussion is about.

I don't think anyone expect families to live solely on minimum wage.

Also this discussion seemed to be about the wealthy pulling away from the rest of us not that the rest of us are all declining into squalor.

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 02:17:52 PM

Quote from: The Larch on July 25, 2013, 02:01:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 09:37:08 AM
So apparently the easy way to guarantee upward mobility is to live on top of shale oil deposits. :hmm:

Can't that be read also as some of the bluer regions having less difference between bottom and top quintiles? Getting to the top quintile in some of the bigger metro areas (NY, LA) must be pretty fucking difficult, no matter how many opportunities you have, while the same in Bumfuck, ND, should be much easier.

Maybe it'd be much more instructive to have the same map but with the middle quintile as target, rather than the top one.

But NYC for example has a pretty decent rate of upward mobility.

No, the dark blue areas coincide very nicely with the areas undergoing a boom due to shale fracking.

By the way I think you'd get a similar effect in parts of Alberta.  Working in the oil patch = money.  You have plenty of farm kids pulling in incomes higher than mine.  You'd easily be in the top quintile if you work in the patch.

Being willing to do something like moving to Bumfuck, ND is exactly the kind of thing that sets most of us apart from the people who excel.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 01:18:44 PM
The poor aren't getting poorer . . .Everything from super power computers, cheap cars better than the nicest Ferrari from Magnum P.I., and medical procedures and treatments people in 1980 would have killed for; this idea that the poor are getting poorer is largely unproven, and just accepted as an article of faith. [Wages haven't even truly been stagnant, average real wages are up 10% from the 70s and median wages are up 4%.]

First of all, an increase of 4% (or even 10%) over a period of 40 years is negligible, not materially different from zero.  "Stagnant" is a very fair description of that degree of growth.
Second, as you go into some of the lower strata, the increase may be even lower.
Third, it is true that for some goods there have been hedonic improvements that can fairly be counted as increases in the quality of living.  But it is far from "everything".  Healthcare, electronics, white goods, arguably transport, yes.  But housing in many urban cores has gotten more expensive, displacing workers outward for a net loss in their quality of life.   The quality of certain key public services - namely public education, has declined at the primary and secondary level and become much more costly at the tertiary level.  There are other difficult to define factors which may have a negative impact: declining job security, the increasing use of multiple part time jobs to maintain income, the shift away from defined benefit pension structures, to take a few examples.
How all these factors weight against each other isn't immediately clear.  In some ways working people may be better off, in other ways not.

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 02:17:52 PM

Quote from: The Larch on July 25, 2013, 02:01:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2013, 09:37:08 AM
So apparently the easy way to guarantee upward mobility is to live on top of shale oil deposits. :hmm:

Can't that be read also as some of the bluer regions having less difference between bottom and top quintiles? Getting to the top quintile in some of the bigger metro areas (NY, LA) must be pretty fucking difficult, no matter how many opportunities you have, while the same in Bumfuck, ND, should be much easier.

Maybe it'd be much more instructive to have the same map but with the middle quintile as target, rather than the top one.

But NYC for example has a pretty decent rate of upward mobility.

No, the dark blue areas coincide very nicely with the areas undergoing a boom due to shale fracking.

By the way I think you'd get a similar effect in parts of Alberta.  Working in the oil patch = money.  You have plenty of farm kids pulling in incomes higher than mine.  You'd easily be in the top quintile if you work in the patch.

If the top quintile is the same all over the country, it explains how people from the big cities have a higher chance to get there, which doesn't necessarily mean that they're in the top quintile of the city.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2013, 09:42:31 AM
The problem if anything is understated.  It is not just that there is a consistent long-dated trend of increasing income *and* wealth dispersion.  Money incomes of working class strata are actually stagnant and over some periods declining.  And most studies to examine the question also report findings that social mobility (measured in economic terms) has declined. (EDIT Thanks Jake for the map)  This is not a sustainable trend in a democracy.  People can tolerate a certain degree of inequality if they have some reasonable hope that their children can rise to the top.  But if that hope seems improbable, eventually there will be a reaction.

I would argue that the causality does not run from distribution to wages, but rather the reverse.  The fact that Warren Buffet is worth several billion is not causing my wages to stagnate, but instead my stagnate wages are impacting my ability to accumulate wealth.

The second part to me is the heart of the matter.  Wealth distribution matters because we say it matters, much like the way a winning or losing sports team we root for matters.  It's a widely held organizing principle.  The top 1% holding 40% of wealth is bad because we say it's bad.

The old promise of the American dream was that if you worked hard and played by the rules your children would have a better life than you had.  It was not that they had a chance of becoming a Rockefeller or a Getty.  And the fact that now it is harder and harder to become a Gates or a Buffet is not primarily a function of the unfairness of the rules (though I agree there are some ways in which the rules are rigged--legacy admissions is my favorite) but rather a function of the fact that the distance to travel from 0 wealth to billions is further than the distance from 0 to millions.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:33:27 AM
Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Of course it is.  Don't be one of those people who says because poors can afford a microwave or have access to refrigeration, things are better than they ever were.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 02:14:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:12:52 PM
I don't know why they would think they should be raising children on a minimum wage. They barely have enough (/not enough) money to take care of themselves.

Yet millions do.

An entirely different discussion.

Not really.  Any system that holds that poors oughtn't to have kids is neither realistic nor equitable.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 03:03:49 PM

The second part to me is the heart of the matter.  Wealth distribution matters because we say it matters, much like the way a winning or losing sports team we root for matters.  It's a widely held organizing principle.  The top 1% holding 40% of wealth is bad because we say it's bad.

No, it is bad because it allows the top 1% to hold a ludicrously disproprotionate level of power and control over society in general. So much in society is driven by your ability to influence via access to wealth that allowing these kind of radcial income distributions is in fact damaging, and in fact I would argue that letting it get to some fraction of what it is at now is very much why the number has gotten to where it is at now. And is what will likely allow it to continue.

I do not have any illusions that this increase is also happening at the same time poltiical contributions to parties has exploded as well, and the laws governing those contriobutions have at the same time been continually relaxed.

Now, whether uber rich Dude #1's candidate or uber rich Dude #2's candidate wins the ensuing election is of great interest to them, what we can be sure of is that ALL the candidates will be funded by some uber rich dude or another, and there won't be a candaidate for the non-uber rich at all. Already we see that the relevance of smaller donors is becoming less and less, and hence policy makers are becoming less and less beholden to the masses.

This is just one example of course, albeit a critical one.

It is NOT important just because we think it is important. It is important because relative concentrations of wealth go right along with relative concentrations of power and control.

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 03:15:08 PM

No, it is bad because it allows the top 1% to hold a ludicrously disproprotionate level of power and control over society in general. So much in society is driven by your ability to influence via access to wealth that allowing these kind of radcial income distributions is in fact damaging, and in fact I would argue that letting it get to some fraction of what it is at now is very much why the number has gotten to where it is at now. And is what will likely allow it to continue.

:yes:

Quote from: Habbaku on July 25, 2013, 02:05:23 PM
$14.50.

I was like Croesus, with my no house and car from 1999. :(

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:04:21 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 01:57:07 PM
Aka a society that'll never happen (/sounds like a nightmare) as people higher up the ladder aren't going to want such instability for their children.

It will obviously never happen as it is impossible to achieve same starting chance in life.

But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

It implies that family and parents have by some mechanism been made unable to contribute to the success of their children. It gets down to an almost philosophical question: what is "ability"?

If it is genetics, then perhaps there will be perfect social mobility in our future gattica world, though I am unsure that whatever genes contribute to "ability" are evenly distributed across income groupings.

If it is knowledge, work ethic, social skills, etc, as determined at some future point in life, then it almost certainly won't be perfect social mobility. Parental impact is going to have a major role. Parents who earn higher incomes should be (on average) better teachers of skills that result in higher incomes, and also have the resources to have others help where they can not.

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 02:04:32 PM
Which can be looked at as a bit silly in and of itself. Even the rich in 3rd world hellholes like Georgia only make like, $14/hour. I think.

I get billed out at somewhat higher than $14/hour, but if you're just looking at what I get paid that sounds about right.

Quote from: ulmont on July 25, 2013, 03:31:00 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 02:04:32 PM
Which can be looked at as a bit silly in and of itself. Even the rich in 3rd world hellholes like Georgia only make like, $14/hour. I think.

I get billed out at somewhat higher than $14/hour, but if you're just looking at what I get paid that sounds about right.

:unsure:

Berkut:

First, I think you're overstating the case.  We just went through an election in which unfettered fat cat money was predicted to buy the election, and the fat cat candidate got stomped.  A rich old Jew tried to buy the GOP nomination for Newt, and Newt got stomped.  Congress, a house controlled by the fat cat party and ostensibly beholden to their paymasters, recently passed a tax increase on anyone making more than $450,000, ostensibly the one policy area that fat cats cared about most and expected the most return for campaign money.

Second, there is quite a bit of circularity in the argument.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that the thing that fat cats care about most is staying fat or getting fatter, and that they will spend their campaign money in the hopes of achieving this end.  As I already said, this didn't work out, but leaving that aside, your objection to unequal distribution is that it will be leveraged to create even more unequal distribution.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 03:45:47 PM
Berkut:

First, I think you're overstating the case.  We just went through an election in which unfettered fat cat money was predicted to buy the election, and the fat cat candidate got stomped.  A rich old Jew tried to buy the GOP nomination for Newt, and Newt got stomped.  Congress, a house controlled by the fat cat party and ostensibly beholden to their paymasters, recently passed a tax increase on anyone making more than $450,000, ostensibly the one policy area that fat cats cared about most and expected the most return for campaign money.

Second, there is quite a bit of circularity in the argument.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that the thing that fat cats care about most is staying fat or getting fatter, and that they will spend their campaign money in the hopes of achieving this end.  As I already said, this didn't work out, but leaving that aside, your objection to unequal distribution is that it will be leveraged to create even more unequal distribution.

You really think the uber rich give two shits about income tax?

Please, that is just plain naive. The fat cat candidate most certainly won - you can't BE a candidate in this world without being a fat cat's candidate. Uber Rich Dude #2 beat out Uber Rich Dude #1.

And really, if you want to argue that forever increasing relative wealth disparity (I guess it can't increase forever, at some point the richest 1% will own everything, I guess at that point it can stop?) is not a problem, I don't even think we have common ground of any kind to even have a discussion. I am rather astounded that you will hold  up the outcome of the last election to "prove" that the wealthy becoming more wealthy somehow has no effect, while ignoring the fact that the wealthy have increased their share of the wealth by an order of magnitude as being somehow unimportant to the discussion.

You are arguing that this is simply not an issue - the uber rich increasing their ownership of the nations aggregate wealth by an order of magnitude simply doesn't matter, and pointing out that some of them had a trivial tax increase as evidence that them having insane wealth doesn't actually give them power? If they didn't have an insane amount of power, I suspect we would have a racially more progressive tax system.

The fact that they are contiunally growing that power and wealth simply demolishes any claim that somehow it "doesn't matter". THEY certainly seem to think it matters.

Quote from: Jacob on July 25, 2013, 09:30:45 AM
Came across this the other day. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aei-ideas.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2F0723213mobility.jpg&hash=9442c5d66ccbdd98e5c2a6ddfb7942718173fe69)

Bit surprised that nobody pointed this out.  Maybe it was too obvious.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsZqjx7H.gif&hash=cc7c374ee2038451d938ab161f510795173e3f6e)

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 25, 2013, 03:14:07 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 02:14:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:12:52 PM
I don't know why they would think they should be raising children on a minimum wage. They barely have enough (/not enough) money to take care of themselves.

Yet millions do.

An entirely different discussion.

Not really.  Any system that holds that poors oughtn't to have kids is neither realistic nor equitable.

That's why it is another discussion because I don't think I was saying that.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:33:27 AM
Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Of course it is.  Don't be one of those people who says because poors can afford a microwave or have access to refrigeration, things are better than they ever were.

I'm glad I'm not saying that then. I also don't buy that the disparity actually shows that we are worse off than we were previously but more that we have less chances of improving our lot than in the past...and less chance than improving our lot up to that 1%.

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 04:13:03 PM
Please, that is just plain naive. The fat cat candidate most certainly won - you can't BE a candidate in this world without being a fat cat's candidate. Uber Rich Dude #2 beat out Uber Rich Dude #1.

:mellow:

If you're already there than there seems there is nothing to be done but revolution, velvet or otherwise.

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 04:13:03 PM
You really think the uber rich give two shits about income tax?
...

If they didn't have an insane amount of power, I suspect we would have a racially more progressive tax system.

:hmm:

QuoteThe fact that they are contiunally growing that power and wealth simply demolishes any claim that somehow it "doesn't matter". THEY certainly seem to think it matters.

The fact that they are continually growing their wealth is a simple function of compound interest (or re-invested dividends, same thing).

Sav has much, much greater wealth than I do.  Unless something drastic happens, the difference will amplify over time as he recieves and re-invests returns on a larger capital base.  I'm sure that to Sav the fact that his nest egg is growing matters very much.  Whether this is unjust is another issue.

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:01:30 PM
Working 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey? That's the American Dream. :)

You didn't like Hoboken?  :(

This discussion has brought to mind a conservative argument for progressive taxation.

Those with greater wealth and income have disproportionately greater interest in society staying structured the same or similarly to what it is now.  The best means to ensure that is by the government being well funded and capable of carrying out its duties.  That greater interest in preserving the status quo should translate into greater contribution in taxes.

Quote from: frunk on July 25, 2013, 04:41:35 PM
This discussion has brought to mind a conservative argument for progressive taxation.

Those with greater wealth and income have disproportionately greater interest in society staying structured the same or similarly to what it is now.  The best means to ensure that is by the government being well funded and capable of carrying out its duties.  That greater interest in preserving the status quo should translate into greater contribution in taxes.

That is an excellent hint at the real reason behind welfare and redistribution: the rich using the middle class' money to buy off the poor from putting them on lamp posts.

Based on what you guys have been telling, I would eliminate the tax perks of the rich in the US first before trying to raise taxes across the board

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 04:21:24 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:33:27 AM
Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Of course it is.  Don't be one of those people who says because poors can afford a microwave or have access to refrigeration, things are better than they ever were.

I'm glad I'm not saying that then. I also don't buy that the disparity actually shows that we are worse off than we were previously but more that we have less chances of improving our lot than in the past...and less chance than improving our lot up to that 1%.

In many concrete terms, I suspect we're less well off--the cost of shelter is certainly much higher (bottom 40% can probably forget owning a home unless they follow the Fahdiz Plan of living in flophouses and saving up $80k in cash from their dirtfarm job), the cost of education (which functions as a massive wealth transfer from all to a few rich), and I'm not sure that Otto's point about "cheap cars" is true, though I'll concede that it may be.

You'll always bleat about education so I write that one off.  As far as housing, it's been true for quite sometime now that most of us couldn't afford to buy houses, we just covered it all up with loans we couldn't really pay.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:33:27 AM
Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Of course it is.  Don't be one of those people who says because poors can afford a microwave or have access to refrigeration, things are better than they ever were.

So when my great-great-grandfather got off the boat from Scotland he had been trained as a school teacher but the only work he could find on these shores was cleaning out the inside of industrial machinery in a 19th century factory. I'll compare his life story to the story of a guy I grew up. My friend James' father worked in the coal industry, in the late-70s he was killed on the job due almost entirely to the negligence of his employer. In the settlement large trusts were set up for James, his mother, and both sisters. Enough that after all three children had graduated college (fully paid for from the trust) they each individually had in excess of $1m in assets, their mother had a similar amount and held no employment from the time her first husband died until the present. My great-great-grandfather was killed at a facility owned by Bethlehem Steel in the 19th century, he was cleaning equipment and it was started while he was essentially inside of it and he was crushed to death. His family received no compensation, and in fact did not even receive his full paycheck for that week (only the hours he had worked prior to the accident.) There was no governmental support offered and minimal community support. My great-grandfather (who I actually knew as a child), then went to work at the age of 14 in a factory (dropping out of school) to support his 5 siblings and mother.

The poor are vastly better off than they are today. Evidence this by the fact here you are, whining on the internet instead of working 7 days a week 12 hours a day and 8 on Sunday.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 05:26:35 PM
You'll always bleat about education so I write that one off.  As far as housing, it's been true for quite sometime now that most of us couldn't afford to buy houses, we just covered it all up with loans we couldn't really pay.

Home ownership was rare in the past, it peaked within the last 20 years I think. Mortgages used to be unheard of and required extremely large down payments. Many people either rented a house or rented land (it used to be not uncommon to rent land and build a house on it, which created the interesting situation of not having the right to actually stay in a home you had built if the landowner evicted you.)

Quote from: frunk on July 25, 2013, 04:41:35 PM
This discussion has brought to mind a conservative argument for progressive taxation.

Those with greater wealth and income have disproportionately greater interest in society staying structured the same or similarly to what it is now.  The best means to ensure that is by the government being well funded and capable of carrying out its duties.  That greater interest in preserving the status quo should translate into greater contribution in taxes.

If the argument is that the wealthy have a disproportionate wish to avoid anarchy, I don't think I buy it.  The wealthy can privatize security much easier because of economies of scale than the middle class can.

IMO the best argument for progressivity is that the government should leave people enough for the necessities of life.

Additionally, a stronger, more well funded government might turn around and antagonize its "benefactors".

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:04:21 PM
But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

The irony is 'meritocracy' was coined by a British writer in a satirical dystopian essay. It was a pejorative phrase that's now something we openly aspire towards.

The problem with meritocracy is that if success = ability + effort then there's very little reason helping people who don't have the ability or the effort, or don't put it in. That is, as in the dystopia, just 'sentimental egalitarianism'. A perfect meritocracy is justly unequal, anything like a welfare state is an act of gratuitous charity from the justly successful, to the justly unsuccessful.

Why is not helpiing people who don't put in effort a problem? :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 06:09:02 PM
Why is not helpiing people who don't put in effort a problem? :huh:

Well they are still people. But that's exactly the problem with a perfect meritocracy. It's justly unequal, the system is more important than the humans in it. It can tolerate a perpetual (but shifting) underclass because it's a fair reflection of their ability and merit.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2013, 06:14:00 PM
Well they are still people. But that's exactly the problem with a perfect meritocracy. It's justly unequal, the system is more important than the humans in it. It can tolerate a perpetual (but shifting) underclass because it's a fair reflection of their ability and merit.

In Korea they call this "east question, west answer."  Or something like that.  I asked about effort and your answered about ability.

Ability is arguably a random die roll of attributes at the beginning of the game over which you have no control.  But effort is very much an in-game choice.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 06:25:05 PM
In Korea they call this "east question, west answer."  Or something like that.  I asked about effort and your answered about ability.

Okay but you were the only one talking about effort alone though, I said meritocracy means success = ability + effort.

Edit: However the answer's the same if it's just a question of effort. Despite people's choices, they are still people and that should matter in any society or economic system.

So it's "from everyone according to their abilities, to everyone according to their needs," unless they don't feel like it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 05:48:49 PM
The wealthy can privatize security much easier because of economies of scale than the middle class can.

Can they privatize patent defense?

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 06:40:12 PM
Can they privatize patent defense?

Theoretically.  They could hire goons to break the knees of everyone who infringes on a patent.  I doubt that would be good use of resources however.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 06:36:08 PMSo it's "from everyone according to their abilities, to everyone according to their needs," unless they don't feel like it.

I don't believe in the idea that there's a just way of being unequal. Any economic system should have the overall welfare of the people involved at its heart and they're fallible. Some will be lazy, some won't ever fulfil their potential or will take the piss and some will just fuck-up. That doesn't mean it's right for society to just let people suffer, or be abandoned.

Luckily in our imperfectly meritocratic society it isn't an issue. For us caring for the poorest and the jobless is good sense and fair. That we're not meritocratic compels us to help people at the bottom of society. In a more perfectly meritocratic society, as you show, it's just gratuitous charity that could rationally, and justly, be done away with. The only justification there (or, for that matter, in a Marxist state) for anything like a welfare state is human weakness and compassion.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 06:45:38 PM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 06:40:12 PM
Can they privatize patent defense?

Theoretically.  They could hire goons to break the knees of everyone who infringes on a patent.  I doubt that would be good use of resources however.

I'm sure the rich would still prefer to live in a country with a rule of law, rather than in 1990ies Russia, and that they would be willing to pay quite a bit more money for that choice (obviously in absolute amounts, but even in relative amounts) than an average peon.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2013, 06:47:26 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 06:36:08 PMSo it's "from everyone according to their abilities, to everyone according to their needs," unless they don't feel like it.

I don't believe in the idea that there's a just way of being unequal. Any economic system should have the overall welfare of the people involved at its heart and they're fallible. Some will be lazy, some won't ever fulfil their potential or will take the piss and some will just fuck-up. That doesn't mean it's right for society to just let people suffer, or be abandoned.

We didn't get to be America by thinking like that, man.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2013, 06:51:38 PM
We didn't get to be America by thinking like that, man.

As ever America needs more Catholics  <_<

I don't quite see how a belief that ability and effort should necessarily be rewarded necessarily leads to a Randian indifference to those less fortunate and productive.

It's also mind-boggling that you think *any* inequality is unjust.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2013, 06:47:26 PM
I don't believe in the idea that there's a just way of being unequal.

Is there a just way of making them the same?

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2013, 06:07:10 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:04:21 PM
But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

The irony is 'meritocracy' was coined by a British writer in a satirical dystopian essay. It was a pejorative phrase that's now something we openly aspire towards.

What about the idea did the writer find so objectionable?

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 06:50:38 PM
I'm sure the rich would still prefer to live in a country with a rule of law, rather than in 1990ies Russia, and that they would be willing to pay quite a bit more money for that choice (obviously in absolute amounts, but even in relative amounts) than an average peon.

Make your case.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 25, 2013, 06:57:17 PM
Is there a just way of making them the same?

I should have clarified I don't mean equal in wealth necessarily, but in worth, status and dignity. Wealth's a part of that, but only a part.

QuoteI don't quite see how a belief that ability and effort should necessarily be rewarded necessarily leads to a Randian indifference to those less fortunate and productive.

We've centuries of history grinding poverty and utter indifference based on the erroneous belief that 'God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate'. Similarly Randian indifference doesn't even begin to cover the views and policies towards blacks in the deep South, which was again based on a mistaken belief.

I can't think of many examples that would make me trust mankind's compassion if, actually, social position did reflect your productivity and genuine worth to society.

QuoteWhat about the idea did the writer find so objectionable?

I've explained that.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 07:03:10 PM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 06:50:38 PM
I'm sure the rich would still prefer to live in a country with a rule of law, rather than in 1990ies Russia, and that they would be willing to pay quite a bit more money for that choice (obviously in absolute amounts, but even in relative amounts) than an average peon.

Make your case.

It's fairly self-evident to me.  In 1990ies Russia, you could relatively easily become rich from out of nothing.  Unfortunately, you could just as easily lose your fortune or your life once you did make it rich.  Easy come, easy go.  That's why a lot of Russian billionaires choose to move themselves and their assets to Britain before the second part happens (they're unlikely to be killed outright nowadays, but they can still lose their political protection, and without political protection your wealth has a very limited lifespan).

If you're relatively poor and relatively risk-seeking, you may actually not mind moving from US to 1990ies Russia.  On the other hand, if you're Bill Gates, you would probably pay tens of billions to avoid that fate.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 06:45:38 PM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 06:40:12 PM
Can they privatize patent defense?

Theoretically.  They could hire goons to break the knees of everyone who infringes on a patent.  I doubt that would be good use of resources however.

Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

Quote from: frunk on July 25, 2013, 07:18:39 PM
Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

And to be honest the sort of wealthy people we have in the US and the UK thrive from a stable market economy, which is in very large part sustained by those higher taxes and the rule of law. The sort of person who becomes and stays rich and the way they do it is rather different in, say, 90s Russia.

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 07:13:24 PM
It's fairly self-evident to me.  In 1990ies Russia, you could relatively easily become rich from out of nothing.  Unfortunately, you could just as easily lose your fortune or your life once you did make it rich.  Easy come, easy go.  That's why a lot of Russian billionaires choose to move themselves and their assets to Britain before the second part happens (they're unlikely to be killed outright nowadays, but they can still lose their political protection, and without political protection your wealth has a very limited lifespan).

If you're relatively poor and relatively risk-seeking, you may actually not mind moving from US to 1990ies Russia.  On the other hand, if you're Bill Gates, you would probably pay tens of billions to avoid that fate.

Disagree for a number of reasons.  First of all, your description of the path to riches in Wild West Russia doesn't sound right.  Yes, a nobody could become rich overnight, but generally they were well-connected nobodies that managed to acquire control over recently privatized state industries and then fucked over minority shareholders.

Secondly, Russia by no stretch of the imagination qualifies as anarchy.  The state is very powerful.  Bill Gates could easily lose all his money in Russia, but not to the mob breaking into his mansion, rather to whims of the state.

Bill Gates would do much, much better in Somalia than you or I would.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2013, 07:21:16 PM

Quote from: frunk on July 25, 2013, 07:18:39 PM
Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

And to be honest the sort of wealthy people we have in the US and the UK thrive from a stable market economy, which is in very large part sustained by those higher taxes and the rule of law. The sort of person who becomes and stays rich and the way they do it is rather different in, say, 90s Russia.

Yes, that's another good point.

Quote from: frunk on July 25, 2013, 07:18:39 PM
Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

But that's not the argument you're making.  You said (I rephrased it) the rich would *disproptionately* seek to avoid anarchy.  I.e. Bill Gates would happily give 9/10 of his wealth to avoid anarchy whereas you and I would only give half.  I'm arguing the opposite, that you and I would be willing to give 99% whereas Bill would give maybe half, because you and I would be fooked and Bill would make do.

Bill Gates would be dead if he'd been competing in 90s Russia, even with all his money.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 07:25:57 PM

Quote from: frunk on July 25, 2013, 07:18:39 PM
Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

But that's not the argument you're making.  You said (I rephrased it) the rich would *disproptionately* seek to avoid anarchy.  I.e. Bill Gates would happily give 9/10 of his wealth to avoid anarchy whereas you and I would only give half.  I'm arguing the opposite, that you and I would be willing to give 99% whereas Bill would give maybe half, because you and I would be fooked and Bill would make do.

I would not be willing to give 99%, because if I gave 99% I'd be destitute anyway.  I'll have no reason to support the current system because the system is taking everything I am making.  My threshold for percentage of my income that I can lose to taxes and still survive comfortably is way lower than Bill Gates.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 07:22:09 PM
Disagree for a number of reasons.  First of all, your description of the path to riches in Wild West Russia doesn't sound right.  Yes, a nobody could become rich overnight, but generally they were well-connected nobodies that managed to acquire control over recently privatized state industries and then fucked over minority shareholders.

Your connections could be a random acquaintance, or just being in the right place at the right time.  Yes, an absolute nobody would not get an oil field from Boris Yeltsin, but they could still get pretty rich.

QuoteSecondly, Russia by no stretch of the imagination qualifies as anarchy.  The state is very powerful.  Bill Gates could easily lose all his money in Russia, but not to the mob breaking into his mansion, rather to whims of the state.

There is no sustainable state of anarchy.  Sooner or later someone fills that power void.  In the case of Russia, it went from being an anarchy in 1990ies with many competing crime and protection syndicates to being a mafia state.  That gave the country some stability, but it didn't give it the rule of law.  If Putin orders one of his capos to take your wealth, you will soon find yourself without your wealth.

QuoteBill Gates would do much, much better in Somalia than you or I would.

Maybe, but I'm sure that he would also pay more than you or I to stay put in US.

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 07:34:13 PM
If Putin orders one of his capos to take your wealth, you will soon find yourself without your wealth.

That's what I said.

Quote
Maybe, but I'm sure that he would also pay more than you or I to stay put in US.

Of course he would.  The question is whether he would pay disproportionately more.

What is to keep the Somali guards from killing Bill Gates?  My understanding is that in Somalia people fight for tribe or ideology rather then just cash.

Quote from: frunk on July 25, 2013, 07:32:37 PM
I would not be willing to give 99%, because if I gave 99% I'd be destitute anyway.  I'll have no reason to support the current system because the system is taking everything I am making.  My threshold for percentage of my income that I can lose to taxes and still survive comfortably is way lower than Bill Gates.

You would be destitute and alive.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 07:38:25 PM

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 07:34:13 PM
If Putin orders one of his capos to take your wealth, you will soon find yourself without your wealth.

That's what I said.

You did say that, but you failed to see that as a consequence of anarchy, and I didn't.  Any country without rule of law is for all intents and purposes an anarchy if you're the rich guy.  Unless you're the dominant warlord/oligarch/mafia don, your fortunes depends a lot on the good graces of your protection, in whatever form it comes.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 07:44:48 PM

Quote from: frunk on July 25, 2013, 07:32:37 PM
I would not be willing to give 99%, because if I gave 99% I'd be destitute anyway.  I'll have no reason to support the current system because the system is taking everything I am making.  My threshold for percentage of my income that I can lose to taxes and still survive comfortably is way lower than Bill Gates.

You would be destitute and alive.

And more than willing to overthrow the government and take my chances with anarchy.

Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 07:45:25 PM
You did say that, but you failed to see that as a consequence of anarchy, and I didn't.  Any country without rule of law is for all intents and purposes an anarchy.  Unless you're the dominant warlord/oligarch/mafia don, your fortunes depends a lot on the good graces of your protection, in whatever form it comes.

To a certain extent.  However in a mafia state you don't have to worry as much about fighting to protect your food, your shelter, or your fuckable women.

There is no reason not to take money from the wealthy to make sure people receive some base level of support. But there is nothing wrong with inequality, and it's inherently just, not unjust. Inequality isn't incompatible with an appropriate amount of social services.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2013, 07:22:09 PM

Bill Gates would do much, much better in Somalia than you or I would.

Bill Gates would be ruined if the world ended up like Somalia. Companies like Microsoft can't function in anarchy. The value of his stock would go to zero. The value of the money he held would also vanish, as would the value of debt holdings.

Maybe Bill Gates could convert some of his wealth into a durable form (such as small arms and ammunition) before the transformation was complete. Maybe he could then capitalize on that wealth to be a powerful warlord. My guess is that Somali warlords have standards of living well below our own, and probably short life expectancies (I wouldn't be surprised if it is even shorter than average Somalis).

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 05:30:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:33:27 AM
Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Of course it is.  Don't be one of those people who says because poors can afford a microwave or have access to refrigeration, things are better than they ever were.

So when my great-great-grandfather got off the boat from Scotland he had been trained as a school teacher but the only work he could find on these shores was cleaning out the inside of industrial machinery in a 19th century factory. I'll compare his life story to the story of a guy I grew up. My friend James' father worked in the coal industry, in the late-70s he was killed on the job due almost entirely to the negligence of his employer. In the settlement large trusts were set up for James, his mother, and both sisters. Enough that after all three children had graduated college (fully paid for from the trust) they each individually had in excess of $1m in assets, their mother had a similar amount and held no employment from the time her first husband died until the present. My great-great-grandfather was killed at a facility owned by Bethlehem Steel in the 19th century, he was cleaning equipment and it was started while he was essentially inside of it and he was crushed to death. His family received no compensation, and in fact did not even receive his full paycheck for that week (only the hours he had worked prior to the accident.) There was no governmental support offered and minimal community support. My great-grandfather (who I actually knew as a child), then went to work at the age of 14 in a factory (dropping out of school) to support his 5 siblings and mother.

The poor are vastly better off than they are today. Evidence this by the fact here you are, whining on the internet instead of working 7 days a week 12 hours a day and 8 on Sunday.

Actually, I wasn't comparing it to the 19th century, but Neolithic times.  That's when we had it made.  Obviously. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 09:57:48 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 05:30:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:33:27 AM
Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Of course it is.  Don't be one of those people who says because poors can afford a microwave or have access to refrigeration, things are better than they ever were.

So when my great-great-grandfather got off the boat from Scotland he had been trained as a school teacher but the only work he could find on these shores was cleaning out the inside of industrial machinery in a 19th century factory. I'll compare his life story to the story of a guy I grew up. My friend James' father worked in the coal industry, in the late-70s he was killed on the job due almost entirely to the negligence of his employer. In the settlement large trusts were set up for James, his mother, and both sisters. Enough that after all three children had graduated college (fully paid for from the trust) they each individually had in excess of $1m in assets, their mother had a similar amount and held no employment from the time her first husband died until the present. My great-great-grandfather was killed at a facility owned by Bethlehem Steel in the 19th century, he was cleaning equipment and it was started while he was essentially inside of it and he was crushed to death. His family received no compensation, and in fact did not even receive his full paycheck for that week (only the hours he had worked prior to the accident.) There was no governmental support offered and minimal community support. My great-grandfather (who I actually knew as a child), then went to work at the age of 14 in a factory (dropping out of school) to support his 5 siblings and mother.

The poor are vastly better off than they are today. Evidence this by the fact here you are, whining on the internet instead of working 7 days a week 12 hours a day and 8 on Sunday.

Actually, I wasn't comparing it to the 19th century, but Neolithic times.  That's when we had it made.  Obviously. :rolleyes:

You know when was a great time? The 50s. People hadn't gotten all uppity yet.

Are you suggesting that a necessary condition for a middle-class society is racial and gender segregation?  No wonder you voted for Romney.

There seems a lot of wistfulness for better conditions in the past and I wonder when exactly those supposedly existed.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 07:57:41 PM
There is no reason not to take money from the wealthy to make sure people receive some base level of support. But there is nothing wrong with inequality, and it's inherently just, not unjust. Inequality isn't incompatible with an appropriate amount of social services.

Yes, it does seem that inequality is the fundamental idea of conservatism.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 04:11:18 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2013, 07:57:41 PM
There is no reason not to take money from the wealthy to make sure people receive some base level of support. But there is nothing wrong with inequality, and it's inherently just, not unjust. Inequality isn't incompatible with an appropriate amount of social services.

Yes, it does seem that inequality is the fundamental idea of conservatism.

It's not, actually--traditional conservatism is more process than results oriented. But I'm not interested in debating the meanings behind a broad term like "conservatism." What we've seen historically is true equality of all is both impossible, and actually in States that have ostensibly tried for it you just have a large number of poor people ruled by a civil servant/political class that find lots of ways to reap unequal benefits. Inequality is fundamentally part of a free society, the only way to get rid of it is to remove significant freedoms.

The idea that in Sweden in the 1970s you might have to pay over 100% in income taxes is ridiculous. Why shouldn't people who found great companies like Ikea or write terrible books like Pippi Lockstocking be able to reap disproportionate rewards from their efforts? When you take away that ability you create a broken and unworkable society. Even the Swedes recognized that and they weren't even that far down the rabbit hole (as compared to countries like the USSR at the time.)

Yes, we do sacrifice fundamental freedoms for the sake of equality.  For instance we curtail property rights so that people won't be enslaved.  If we remove the freedom to be a slave why shouldn't we remove the freedom to starve?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 07:04:05 AM
Yes, we do sacrifice fundamental freedoms for the sake of equality.  For instance we curtail property rights so that people won't be enslaved.  If we remove the freedom to be a slave why shouldn't we remove the freedom to starve?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3562%2F3454581387_a677f0b64f.jpg&hash=ca280dc21e3f87f81fe6a69fe6ba237bcd67198f)

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:04:21 PM
But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

If I had children, I wouldn't want to have to watch them fail.

Well, all parents want their children to succeed, but obviously the concept of social mobility necessitates that at least some do relatively, not necessarily absolutely worse than their parents.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2013, 03:30:51 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:04:21 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 01:57:07 PM
Aka a society that'll never happen (/sounds like a nightmare) as people higher up the ladder aren't going to want such instability for their children.

It will obviously never happen as it is impossible to achieve same starting chance in life.

But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

It implies that family and parents have by some mechanism been made unable to contribute to the success of their children. It gets down to an almost philosophical question: what is "ability"?

If it is genetics, then perhaps there will be perfect social mobility in our future gattica world, though I am unsure that whatever genes contribute to "ability" are evenly distributed across income groupings.

If it is knowledge, work ethic, social skills, etc, as determined at some future point in life, then it almost certainly won't be perfect social mobility. Parental impact is going to have a major role. Parents who earn higher incomes should be (on average) better teachers of skills that result in higher incomes, and also have the resources to have others help where they can not.

Yes, as I said it is impossible to have the same starting chance in life for everybody as social context and genetics obviously matter. I guess societies can accept that to a certain degree and I don't want to argue that 20% is the rate that Valmy asked for. I merely pointed it out for reference.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2013, 06:07:10 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:04:21 PM
But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

The irony is 'meritocracy' was coined by a British writer in a satirical dystopian essay. It was a pejorative phrase that's now something we openly aspire towards.

The problem with meritocracy is that if success = ability + effort then there's very little reason helping people who don't have the ability or the effort, or don't put it in. That is, as in the dystopia, just 'sentimental egalitarianism'. A perfect meritocracy is justly unequal, anything like a welfare state is an act of gratuitous charity from the justly successful, to the justly unsuccessful.

Yes, you're right. I guess that would in fact be a nightmare, but not the one that Garbon had in mind.

Quote from: Zanza on July 26, 2013, 09:34:37 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 25, 2013, 02:04:21 PM
But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

If I had children, I wouldn't want to have to watch them fail.

Well, all parents want their children to succeed, but obviously the concept of social mobility necessitates that at least some do relatively, not necessarily absolutely worse than their parents.

Sure but in your "perfect" scenario, parents would be completely helpless. /it really seems like it'd make more sense to have some sort of Plato's Republic like arrangement of family.

You will never get a society in which success = ability + effort. There will always be other factors involved, such as upbringing, luck, and environmental factors beyond one's reasonable control. 

I think the value of 20% is only interesting as a point of reference. From the looks of the map, there are quite a few areas where the lower quintile shows much more upward social mobility than what you would expect in even a perfect meritocratic society. That's a quite interesting effect. Probably just as interest as the very bad value for Atalanta et al.

Quote from: Zanza on July 26, 2013, 09:54:12 AM
the very bad value for Atalanta

Hunting is not a path toward upward mobility

Quote from: Zanza on July 26, 2013, 09:54:12 AM
I think the value of 20% is only interesting as a point of reference. From the looks of the map, there are quite a few areas where the lower quintile shows much more upward social mobility than what you would expect in even a perfect meritocratic society. That's a quite interesting effect. Probably just as interest as the very bad value for Atalanta et al.

Probably an artifact of not adjusting for local conditions. If a dirt poor region suddenly gains wealth, you can go from almost everyone in the area being in the lower half to most in the upper half. That would show as social mobility, but it doesn't mean the sons of janitors are becoming doctors.

On the other side, the deep south is poor. Being in the top quintile nationally may mean are are in the top 10% there, so social mobility in that region is less likely.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2013, 11:08:55 AM

Quote from: Zanza on July 26, 2013, 09:54:12 AM
I think the value of 20% is only interesting as a point of reference. From the looks of the map, there are quite a few areas where the lower quintile shows much more upward social mobility than what you would expect in even a perfect meritocratic society. That's a quite interesting effect. Probably just as interest as the very bad value for Atalanta et al.

Probably an artifact of not adjusting for local conditions. If a dirt poor region suddenly gains wealth, you can go from almost everyone in the area being in the lower half to most in the upper half. That would show as social mobility, but it doesn't mean the sons of janitors are becoming doctors.

On the other side, the deep south is poor. Being in the top quintile nationally may mean are are in the top 10% there, so social mobility in that region is less likely.

:yes: Not adjusting for cost of living, among other things, is IMO a major oversight.

Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2013, 09:45:33 AM
You will never get a society in which success = ability + effort. There will always be other factors involved, such as upbringing, luck, and environmental factors beyond one's reasonable control.

Upbringing and environmental factors affect ability.

In Sweden we built a society where you only fail if you're a lazy bum. The failures and their supporters still cry for more, more, MORE of my money.

Quote from: PDH on July 26, 2013, 10:52:38 AM

Quote from: Zanza on July 26, 2013, 09:54:12 AM
the very bad value for Atalanta

Hunting is not a path toward upward mobility

:lol:

Quote from: Barrister on July 26, 2013, 08:30:01 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 07:04:05 AM
Yes, we do sacrifice fundamental freedoms for the sake of equality.  For instance we curtail property rights so that people won't be enslaved.  If we remove the freedom to be a slave why shouldn't we remove the freedom to starve?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3562%2F3454581387_a677f0b64f.jpg&hash=ca280dc21e3f87f81fe6a69fe6ba237bcd67198f)

Got a problem?

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2013, 12:24:08 AM
Assuming we could muster the political will to fix it in principle, how could you fix it in a practical sense? What kind of legislation would a smart government enact to slowly (or not so slowly) adjust this back to where we as a society would like it to be?

I forgot to answer this earlier. It's difficult and there's no one answer, the answer you come up with will be informed by your political values and ideology.

For me I'd broadly say you should have a well-funded but narrowly directed welfare state aimed at the poorest and those most in need (probably hand-in-hand with substantial pensions reform) along the lines of what Australia has. I think in the US and the UK we've nationalised the benefits of work, so rather than people's wages increasing we've added lots of 'working family tax credits', 'earned income tax credits' and so on. I think we should abolish them, raise the minimum wage and cut corporate or payroll tax so that increasing your pay packet is tied to employment rather than the welfare state.

Then I think the US needs substantial healthcare reform to lift, or shift that cost from the middle and working class. Paying more than anywhere else in the world for a system that isn't even truly universal just doesn't seem sustainable and seems to place a high cost on individuals, on top of the taxes they're already paying. In addition I think the same will happen with social care as people get older so it's probably better to address it now, before it becomes another unbearable cost for many working families.

In the UK and the US I think I'd have a tax on high wealth and a land value tax combined with making income taxes broader and lower. Socially I also think that the high rate of incarceration and its effects and the race are major issues hindering social mobility in the US - I've no idea how to address them.

Finally the US and the UK need education reform at primary and secondary level. I also think the US needs reform of higher education to make it a lot cheaper - again it's like healthcare at the moment it just seems an unsustainable cost on individuals.

QuoteYou will never get a society in which success = ability + effort. There will always be other factors involved, such as upbringing, luck, and environmental factors beyond one's reasonable control.

Obviously, that's why it's a dystopia. But like most dystopias it was criticising a trend within society. In Young's perfect meritocracy they eventually develop techniques to accurately predict someone's IQ at the age of 4. Everyone gets put into ability streams and then it's pure effort how far they'll go. Eventually there's a revolt of the underclass, because they are an underclass but also because they know they deserve it.

I sense a shift in the US though, I think people a decade ago used to be far more confident in America being an equitable, meritocratic society than they are now. So the success of the top and the difficult of the bottom look less justified and less the consequence of merit.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 07:04:05 AM
If we remove the freedom to be a slave why shouldn't we remove the freedom to starve?

Because one is a negative right and the other is a positive right.  In this country there's a broad consensus on negative rights, much less so on positive rights.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 03:14:45 PM
Because one is a negative right and the other is a positive right.  In this country there's a broad consensus on negative rights, much less so on positive rights.

Which is a poor classification, in that all rights can command positive action from the state.

Quote from: ulmont on July 26, 2013, 03:51:56 PM
Which is a poor classification, in that all rights can command positive action from the state.

Not sure I understand.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 12:50:15 PMGot a problem?

It would appear your brain fell out of your head while you were crafting a response to my post, that's probably what has BB worried.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 03:55:13 PM

Quote from: ulmont on July 26, 2013, 03:51:56 PM
Which is a poor classification, in that all rights can command positive action from the state.

Not sure I understand.

My negative right to be free from restraints against speech is actually a positive right to invoke one branch of the government (the judiciary) as against another (the executive) for some form of redress.

And so on.

Quote from: ulmont on July 26, 2013, 04:19:28 PM
My negative right to be free from restraints against speech is actually a positive right to invoke one branch of the government (the judiciary) as against another (the executive) for some form of redress.

And so on.

OK.  But the most important difference between the two types of rights is that for you to enjoy negative rights others must generally do nothing, whereas to enjoy positive rights the state must extract the fruits of labor from someone else and pass them on to you.  So not really a poor classification.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: ulmont on July 26, 2013, 04:19:28 PM
My negative right to be free from restraints against speech is actually a positive right to invoke one branch of the government (the judiciary) as against another (the executive) for some form of redress.

And so on.

OK.  But the most important difference between the two types of rights is that for you to enjoy negative rights others must generally do nothing, whereas to enjoy positive rights the state must extract the fruits of labor from someone else and pass them on to you.  So not really a poor classification.

Your proposed difference only holds up if courts and police, necessary to enforce even the most basic negative rights, are free.  Which is to say that the difference is illusory.

Quote from: ulmont on July 26, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
Your proposed difference only holds up if courts and police, necessary to enforce even the most basic negative rights, are free.  Which is to say that the difference is illusory.

No, my proposed difference holds up even if courts and police cost a billion zillion dollars.  Negative rights are still upheld when others do nothing.

People have a problem with positive and negative rights? It's not that difficult.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 03:14:45 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 07:04:05 AM
If we remove the freedom to be a slave why shouldn't we remove the freedom to starve?

Because one is a negative right and the other is a positive right.  In this country there's a broad consensus on negative rights, much less so on positive rights.

Are you of the opinion that to own property is a positive right?  Or to be in a state that you are born into is a positive right?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 26, 2013, 04:05:26 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 12:50:15 PMGot a problem?

It would appear your brain fell out of your head while you were crafting a response to my post, that's probably what has BB worried.

Lot of folks fought and died for what they thought was a fundamental freedom to own slaves.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 07:45:30 PM
Are you of the opinion that to own property is a positive right?  Or to be in a state that you are born into is a positive right?

I am not of the opinion that property is a positive right.  I don't know what you mean by the second one.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 07:52:43 PMLot of folks fought and died for what they thought was a fundamental freedom to own slaves.

I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish Wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 08:05:33 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 07:45:30 PM
Are you of the opinion that to own property is a positive right?  Or to be in a state that you are born into is a positive right?

I am not of the opinion that property is a positive right.  I don't know what you mean by the second one.

Ah okay.  I'm looking at slavery as having two "rights".  The right to own a slave (a property right), and a right to be a slave.  A right that come from a state of being like having the right to be born poor, the right to starve, the right to fail.  Both of these rights seem to be negative rights.

You seemed to indicate there was a positive right here I was disagreeing.

You're slightly confused on the what a negative right is.  I negative right is a right not to have others do bad things to you.  The right not to have your speech stifled, the right not to have your property taken without recompense.

I agree that first ulmont, then you, make a valid linguistic point that rights that we all generally agree are indespensible functions of government, such as safety from crime, the right to adjudication of wrongdoings, protection against foreign threats, do in fact require resources to provide.

But frankly this is a debating point.  If your objective is to convince others that positive rights, such as the rights to shelter or food, are in fact truly rights and therefore entail a corresponding obligation on the part of the persons providing that shelter and food, then I don't think this line of argument will do the trick.

Actually my point was more toward what Otto was going on about, how fundamental freedoms are lost for the sake of equality.  The abolishing of slavery curtailed property rights and made society more equal.  If you think about it, emancipation was the largest transfer of wealth in our history.  The US goverment took the property of certain individuals (slave owners), and gave it to other individuals (the former slaves who now theoretically had control over their own persons).

Slavery was and is abhorrent because it's people doing bad things to other people.  We generally agree that people shouldn't do bad things to other people.  What we don't generally agree on is that people are obligated to do good things for other people.

My previous post was written in a state of intoxication and should be disregarded.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 04:23:33 PM
Slavery was and is abhorrent because it's people doing bad things to other people.  We generally agree that people shouldn't do bad things to other people.  What we don't generally agree on is that people are obligated to do good things for other people.

My previous post was written in a state of intoxication and should be disregarded.

No, slavery is abhorrent because people should not be property no matter how well their "master" might treat them.  Under your definition slavery would be fine so long as all master's were kind.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2013, 05:40:32 PM
No, slavery is abhorrent because people should not be property no matter how well their "master" might treat them.  Under your definition slavery would be fine so long as all master's were kind.

No it wouldn't.  The kindest slave master still restricts the movements and actions of his slave, and coerces labor from them.

@ Berkut - I think the answer lies in the taxation system.  Not just in the rate of taxation but the system itself.  Wealth can be accumulated at a much greater rate by the 1% than by the middle class because the tax system is skewed heavily in their favour.  Taxation on employment income is the highest - so most people who are able take their income in other forms - dividends, shares, income trusts, etc etc etc etc....  The list is only limited by the imagination of one's accountants and tax lawyers.


Which is another way of saying that tax reform is a big issue on both our countries.

Another issue, perhaps the main issue, is how to tax estates.  One simple way to ensure that everyone is rewarded according to their ability and hard work is to limit the ability of wealth to be transmitted through the generations.   

But that sort of tax reform isn't necessarily helpful now we're in a global tax market. I think a lot of Americans (and Brits) would happily shift to the Isle of Man or an Caribbean haven if there was too much tax reform.

But in the other way, I was speaking to a British tax lawyer recently who said he had a lot of Russian clients who didn't care how much tax they had to pay. Their priority was to get their assets and funds safely under English law and the far-higher tax rate was worth paying.

Edit: And obviously the sort of money that you're talking about can be moved. You can't very easily move income tax.

As an aside that's another reason I support raising the minimum wage. In this country the minimum wage jobs left are service sector and difficult to move: it's cleaners and janitors and shop assistants and cafe staff. Unlike manufacturing they can't be outsourced so I think a minimum wage rise wouldn't have such a negative impact on employment (historically it never has in the UK, though we've only had it for 15 years or so) and it would have an impact on workers.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2013, 07:17:41 PM
But that sort of tax reform isn't necessarily helpful now we're in a global tax market. I think a lot of Americans (and Brits) would happily shift to the Isle of Man or an Caribbean haven if there was too much tax reform.

That is part of the tax reform that is required.  The main reason those places are attractive is not because people are legally avoiding paying tax...

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 04:23:33 PM
Slavery was and is abhorrent because it's people doing bad things to other people.  We generally agree that people shouldn't do bad things to other people.  What we don't generally agree on is that people are obligated to do good things for other people.

My previous post was written in a state of intoxication and should be disregarded.

The Slave owners didn't recognize it as doing bad things to other people.  So we hit an impasse with your "generally agree that people shouldn't do bad things to other people", since the slave owner clearly were not agreeing that they were doing bad thing to other people.  We have similar problems with property rights today for instance environmental pollution.  A factory may reduce the quality of life (and the life spans!) of people living around it but they hardly will agree that they are doing bad things to people.  Anyway that is a bit off topic.

Slavery is form of inequality and we all agree it's bad, (at least I think it's bad), and we rectified it by removing certain "fundamental freedoms".  So clearly inequality is a bad thing, and removing some freedoms to destroy it is a good thing.

The slave owners may or may not have thought they were doing bad things to their slaves, but we did fight a war over the issue, and now it is generally agreed that people shouldn't do bad things to other people.

We believe in the principle of equal rights and equal protections under the law.  It does no follow from that belief that we must believe in the equal distribution of income and wealth, and generally we don't.

Does that mean we are going to have to fight a war again?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2013, 09:20:24 PM
Does that mean we are going to have to fight a war again?

Depends what you mean by "we" and "have to."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 08:08:08 PM
now it is generally agreed that people shouldn't do bad things to other people.

It is?

If so, I wonder why we have no laws to enforce such moral conduct.  You yourself readily defend the right of employers to dismiss their employees at will.  Indeed you have often argued that doing this particular bad thing to other people is on the whole positive for society.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2013, 05:40:32 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 04:23:33 PM
Slavery was and is abhorrent because it's people doing bad things to other people.  We generally agree that people shouldn't do bad things to other people.  What we don't generally agree on is that people are obligated to do good things for other people.

My previous post was written in a state of intoxication and should be disregarded.

No, slavery is abhorrent because people should not be property no matter how well their "master" might treat them.  Under your definition slavery would be fine so long as all master's were kind.

Why do you hate BDSM?  :mad:

Quote from: Syt on July 28, 2013, 02:58:03 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2013, 05:40:32 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 04:23:33 PM
Slavery was and is abhorrent because it's people doing bad things to other people.  We generally agree that people shouldn't do bad things to other people.  What we don't generally agree on is that people are obligated to do good things for other people.

My previous post was written in a state of intoxication and should be disregarded.

No, slavery is abhorrent because people should not be property no matter how well their "master" might treat them.  Under your definition slavery would be fine so long as all master's were kind.

Why do you hate BDSM?  :mad:

Fake slavery.

Quote from: Syt on July 28, 2013, 02:58:03 AM
Why do you hate BDSM?  :mad:

:lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2013, 10:45:40 PM
If so, I wonder why we have no laws to enforce such moral conduct.  You yourself readily defend the right of employers to dismiss their employees at will.  Indeed you have often argued that doing this particular bad thing to other people is on the whole positive for society.

A general agreement that people shouldn't do bad things to other people does not mean a general agreement that employers should not be able to dismiss employees (which is a "bad thing" for the employee and whether it is "at will" or not is immaterial).  That's the difference between a "general agreement" and an "absolute agreement:" a general agreement has exceptions.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2013, 10:45:40 PM
If so, I wonder why we have no laws to enforce such moral conduct.  You yourself readily defend the right of employers to dismiss their employees at will.  Indeed you have often argued that doing this particular bad thing to other people is on the whole positive for society.

No, they do it to increase the shareholder value and profit for the corporation, which Yi places a premium on above anything positive for society.  :P

Firing someone is "a bad thing" in the same way that quitting a job, not buying any more from the same retailer, or getting a divorce are bad things: they make people unhappy.  But the discontinuation of a mutually beneficial relationship is not the same thing as murder, or robbery, or assault, because a murderer, robber, or assaulter is taking away something that didn't belong to them, whereas the first group is merely exercising their free will as to who they will associate with. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2013, 06:06:05 PM
@ Berkut - I think the answer lies in the taxation system.  Not just in the rate of taxation but the system itself.  Wealth can be accumulated at a much greater rate by the 1% than by the middle class because the tax system is skewed heavily in their favour.  Taxation on employment income is the highest - so most people who are able take their income in other forms - dividends, shares, income trusts, etc etc etc etc....  The list is only limited by the imagination of one's accountants and tax lawyers.


Which is another way of saying that tax reform is a big issue on both our countries.

Another issue, perhaps the main issue, is how to tax estates.  One simple way to ensure that everyone is rewarded according to their ability and hard work is to limit the ability of wealth to be transmitted through the generations.

Well, primogeniture and inheritance in general is how the nobility stayed so powerful for so long in the UK. It seems fairly obvious reigning in vast estates is the way to go to deal with the problem  of a developing "entrenched upper class." It doesn't do much about current income inequality of persons who start from a roughly equal point and end up with widely disparate results, but I think we should look seriously at how we handle estates.

I lean somewhere towards Carnegie on the matter. He wrote that he basically thought rich people should both keep their money while they're alive, and give it all away. His reasoning was that by becoming rich they demonstrated some aptitude with money, and that they would be good shepherds in the efforts to get rid of their money. His opinion was that aside from "reasonable" support of dependents wealth should be almost entirely given away during the wealthy person's life. He found in his own life that actually wasn't as easy as just waving a wand (especially at his level of wealth, as he had ongoing complex business arrangements and etc)--so his ultimate solution of endowing several foundations was a good one.

I'm comfortable with a wealthy guy leaving his heirs enough that they basically "never have to work." That's fine, that number is somewhere in the $4-15m range. I'll even be generous and just say, no estate taxes on estates up to $25m. I'm much less comfortable with a wealthy guy leaving his heirs enough that they are on the Forbes 500, or so much that not only do they never have to work they can buy a new plane every year. So I'd say any assets in an estate over $25m should be taxed at a 100% rate. [Let's not get concerned about tax dodges, let's assume we'd write the statute so that you can't easily dodge the tax through strange trusts or sheltering.]

What I'd basically want is a wealthy guy left with two options: giving away all his money (down to $25m) before he dies, or he has the option to endow an independently run charitable foundation in his will--but said foundation must not provide any pecuniary benefit to any of his descendants or legal heirs.

What about companies like Mars or Tyson Foods or Wal-Mart that are either privately owned by a family (Mars) or controlled by a majority voting-power family (Tyson, Wal-Mart?) I'd basically say this is the end of people who just happen to be the grandkids of a corporate founder who get billions of dollars in shares of the company. And the founding family loses control. I'd basically give the founder the option to convert his company into an "employee owned business" (like Publix, for example), or he could give his stake in the company to a charitable foundation (who would use income derived from it for charitable purposes, but this foundation must not provide any pecuniary benefit to any of the guy's heirs), or the government just takes it out of his estate and runs an IPO and keeps the proceeds, force-converting it into a regular publicly traded company.

The only scheme where I'd be okay with the owner passing on the company would be some sort of system where you would be allowed to transfer say, 5% of your holdings in an enterprise to an heir for every year they are involved in the day-to-day management of the company whose shares you are gifting them. So I guess that means one of the Walton sons could have received at least a portion of Sam's shares, but he'd have to work for it. Same for the Mars kids.

Yeah Carnegie's money more or less got our medical system rolling down the wrong hill, so I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off if he had just kept it and gave it to his heirs.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2013, 02:43:19 PM
Firing someone is "a bad thing" in the same way that quitting a job, not buying any more from the same retailer, or getting a divorce are bad things: they make people unhappy.  But the discontinuation of a mutually beneficial relationship is not the same thing as murder, or robbery, or assault, because a murderer, robber, or assaulter is taking away something that didn't belong to them, whereas the first group is merely exercising their free will as to who they will associate with.

What about something like air pollution lowering the quality of life and real estate value of people in the area?

My employer has converted the thing into an employee owned business. I currently own 9.049 shares and they're worth about forty bucks.  :P

Yay.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2013, 08:36:04 PM
What about something like air pollution lowering the quality of life and real estate value of people in the area?

Air is a communal resource that we need to decide communally how to use.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 28, 2013, 08:30:23 PM
Yeah Carnegie's money more or less got our medical system rolling down the wrong hill, so I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off if he had just kept it and gave it to his heirs.

Not really remotely accurate.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2013, 08:39:57 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2013, 08:36:04 PM
What about something like air pollution lowering the quality of life and real estate value of people in the area?

Air is a communal resource that we need to decide communally how to use.

Are you saying it doesn't qualify as "people doing bad things to other people"?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2013, 08:54:28 PM
Are you saying it doesn't qualify as "people doing bad things to other people"?

If we communally decide to the use the air a certain way, and someone pollutes it in a way we didn't agree on, the polluter is doing a bad thing.  He is breaking the law.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2013, 09:26:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2013, 08:54:28 PM
Are you saying it doesn't qualify as "people doing bad things to other people"?

If we communally decide to the use the air a certain way, and someone pollutes it in a way we didn't agree on, the polluter is doing a bad thing.  He is breaking the law.

Is this the way we decided that Slavery was bad?  Through a communal decision?

Yes. A half million white boys communally died.

Is this going anywhere in particular Raz?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2013, 10:09:01 PM
Is this going anywhere in particular Raz?

Yes.  It was my impression that slavery was bad because of the principles you laid out with negative and positive rights.  Slavery is wrong because it's people doing bad things to other people.  Pollution is also a case where people do bad things to other people.  Pollutants can do anything from mildly annoy people and reduce property value to kill or permanently disable folks.  The principles you used to justify the outlawing slavery would seem to apply here.  However, you balk at it.  Instead you say something about the far more arbitrary principle of "communal decisions".

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 28, 2013, 05:53:55 PM
Well, primogeniture and inheritance in general is how the nobility stayed so powerful for so long in the UK. It seems fairly obvious reigning in vast estates is the way to go to deal with the problem  of a developing "entrenched upper class." It doesn't do much about current income inequality of persons who start from a roughly equal point and end up with widely disparate results, but I think we should look seriously at how we handle estates.

Agreed.  I have no problem with the concept of earned income disparity.  I do think there is an issue with wealth accumulation having no relationship to merit and from the balance of your post it appears we are of the same mind on this issue.

Ugh... :(

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/28/19738595-ap-4-in-5-americans-live-in-danger-of-falling-into-poverty-joblessness?lite

QuoteAP: 4 in 5 Americans live in danger of falling into poverty, joblessness

Debra Mccown / AP
By The Associated Press

Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration's emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to "rebuild ladders of opportunity" and reverse income inequality.

As nonwhites approach a numerical majority in the U.S., one question is how public programs to lift the disadvantaged should be best focused — on the affirmative action that historically has tried to eliminate the racial barriers seen as the major impediment to economic equality, or simply on improving socioeconomic status for all, regardless of race.

Hardship is particularly growing among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families' economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy "poor."

"I think it's going to get worse," said Irene Salyers, 52, of Buchanan County, Va., a declining coal region in Appalachia. Married and divorced three times, Salyers now helps run a fruit and vegetable stand with her boyfriend but it doesn't generate much income. They live mostly off government disability checks.

"If you do try to go apply for a job, they're not hiring people, and they're not paying that much to even go to work," she said. Children, she said, have "nothing better to do than to get on drugs."

While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.

The gauge defines "economic insecurity" as a year or more of periodic joblessness, reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent.

Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.

"It's time that America comes to understand that many of the nation's biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position," said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty. He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama's election, while struggling whites do not.

"There is the real possibility that white alienation will increase if steps are not taken to highlight and address inequality on a broad front," Wilson said.


Nationwide, the count of America's poor remains stuck at a record number: 46.2 million, or 15 percent of the population, due in part to lingering high unemployment following the recession. While poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are nearly three times higher, by absolute numbers the predominant face of the poor is white.

More than 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for more than 41 percent of the nation's destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks.

Sometimes termed "the invisible poor" by demographers, lower-income whites generally are dispersed in suburbs as well as small rural towns, where more than 60 percent of the poor are white. Concentrated in Appalachia in the East, they are numerous in the industrial Midwest and spread across America's heartland, from Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma up through the Great Plains.

Buchanan County in southwest Virginia is among the nation's most destitute based on median income, with poverty hovering at 24 percent. The county is mostly white, as are 99 percent of its poor.

More than 90 percent of Buchanan County's inhabitants are working-class whites who lack a college degree. Higher education long has been seen there as nonessential to land a job because well-paying mining and related jobs were once in plentiful supply. These days many residents get by on odd jobs and government checks.

Salyers' daughter, Renee Adams, 28, who grew up in the region, has two children. A jobless single mother, she relies on her live-in boyfriend's disability checks to get by. Salyers says it was tough raising her own children as it is for her daughter now, and doesn't even try to speculate what awaits her grandchildren, ages 4 and 5.

Smoking a cigarette in front of the produce stand, Adams later expresses a wish that employers will look past her conviction a few years ago for distributing prescription painkillers, so she can get a job and have money to "buy the kids everything they need."

"It's pretty hard," she said. "Once the bills are paid, we might have $10 to our name."

Census figures provide an official measure of poverty, but they're only a temporary snapshot that doesn't capture the makeup of those who cycle in and out of poverty at different points in their lives. They may be suburbanites, for example, or the working poor or the laid off.

In 2011 that snapshot showed 12.6 percent of adults in their prime working-age years of 25-60 lived in poverty. But measured in terms of a person's lifetime risk, a much higher number — 4 in 10 adults — falls into poverty for at least a year of their lives.

The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.

Higher recent rates of unemployment mean the lifetime risk of experiencing economic insecurity now runs even higher: 79 percent, or 4 in 5 adults, by the time they turn 60.

By race, nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent. But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.

By 2030, based on the current trend of widening income inequality, close to 85 percent of all working-age adults in the U.S. will experience bouts of economic insecurity.

"Poverty is no longer an issue of 'them,' it's an issue of 'us,'" says Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who calculated the numbers. "Only when poverty is thought of as a mainstream event, rather than a fringe experience that just affects blacks and Hispanics, can we really begin to build broader support for programs that lift people in need."

The numbers come from Rank's analysis being published by the Oxford University Press. They are supplemented with interviews and figures provided to the AP by Tom Hirschl, a professor at Cornell University; John Iceland, a sociology professor at Penn State University; the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute; the Census Bureau; and the Population Reference Bureau.

Among the findings:

• For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.

• Since 2000, the poverty rate among working-class whites has grown faster than among working-class nonwhites, rising 3 percentage points to 11 percent as the recession took a bigger toll among lower-wage workers. Still, poverty among working-class nonwhites remains higher, at 23 percent.

• The share of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods — those with poverty rates of 30 percent or more — has increased to 1 in 10, putting them at higher risk of teenage pregnancy or dropping out of school. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 17 percent of the child population in such neighborhoods, compared with 13 percent in 2000, even though the overall proportion of white children in the U.S. has been declining.

The share of black children in high-poverty neighborhoods dropped from 43 percent to 37 percent, while the share of Latino children went from 38 percent to 39 percent.

• Race disparities in health and education have narrowed generally since the 1960s. While residential segregation remains high, a typical black person now lives in a nonmajority black neighborhood for the first time. Previous studies have shown that wealth is a greater predictor of standardized test scores than race; the test-score gap between rich and low-income students is now nearly double the gap between blacks and whites.

•••

Going back to the 1980s, never have whites been so pessimistic about their futures, according to the General Social Survey, a biannual survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago. Just 45 percent say their family will have a good chance of improving their economic position based on the way things are in America.

The divide is especially evident among those whites who self-identify as working class. Forty-nine percent say they think their children will do better than them, compared with 67 percent of nonwhites who consider themselves working class, even though the economic plight of minorities tends to be worse.

Although they are a shrinking group, working-class whites — defined as those lacking a college degree — remain the biggest demographic bloc of the working-age population. In 2012, Election Day exit polls conducted for the AP and the television networks showed working-class whites made up 36 percent of the electorate, even with a notable drop in white voter turnout.

Last November, Obama won the votes of just 36 percent of those noncollege whites, the worst performance of any Democratic nominee among that group since Republican Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory over Walter Mondale.

Some Democratic analysts have urged renewed efforts to bring working-class whites into the political fold, calling them a potential "decisive swing voter group" if minority and youth turnout level off in future elections. "In 2016 GOP messaging will be far more focused on expressing concern for `the middle class' and `average Americans,'" Andrew Levison and Ruy Teixeira recently wrote in The New Republic.

"They don't trust big government, but it doesn't mean they want no government," says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. His research found that many of them would support anti-poverty programs if focused broadly on job training and infrastructure investment. This past week, Obama pledged anew to help manufacturers bring jobs back to America and to create jobs in the energy sectors of wind, solar and natural gas.

"They feel that politicians are giving attention to other people and not them," Goeas said.

What a bunch of meatheads.

Some people are just inferior. :(

Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2013, 11:42:46 PM
Some people are just inferior. :(

4 out of 5 is higher thanI would have guessed.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
Yes.  It was my impression that slavery was bad because of the principles you laid out with negative and positive rights.  Slavery is wrong because it's people doing bad things to other people.  Pollution is also a case where people do bad things to other people.  Pollutants can do anything from mildly annoy people and reduce property value to kill or permanently disable folks.  The principles you used to justify the outlawing slavery would seem to apply here.  However, you balk at it.  Instead you say something about the far more arbitrary principle of "communal decisions".

I already explained why I don't consider all pollution to be wrongdoing.  You're just restating what you've already said.

Quote from: sbr on July 28, 2013, 11:48:28 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2013, 11:42:46 PM
Some people are just inferior. :(

4 out of 5 is higher thanI would have guessed.

It's 19 percent points lower than I would've guessed.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2013, 01:12:56 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
Yes.  It was my impression that slavery was bad because of the principles you laid out with negative and positive rights.  Slavery is wrong because it's people doing bad things to other people.  Pollution is also a case where people do bad things to other people.  Pollutants can do anything from mildly annoy people and reduce property value to kill or permanently disable folks.  The principles you used to justify the outlawing slavery would seem to apply here.  However, you balk at it.  Instead you say something about the far more arbitrary principle of "communal decisions".

I already explained why I don't consider all pollution to be wrongdoing.  You're just restating what you've already said.

Water or air is simply the medium in which harm is inflicted.  The problem isn't that a person is causing harm to the air, it's that he's causing harm to a person.  The problem with slavery isn't the abuse of whips or chains but the harm to a person.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 08:05:33 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 07:45:30 PM
Are you of the opinion that to own property is a positive right?  Or to be in a state that you are born into is a positive right?

I am not of the opinion that property is a positive right. 

That's what gives ulmont's criticism some bite.
Person A says " i want to eat, I am going to take a fish from the lake"
Person B says " that lake is mine, pay for the right to take fish."
The state has to decide which claim to favor.

But that's easy.  The lake belongs to the State.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2013, 10:11:04 AM
Water or air is simply the medium in which harm is inflicted.  The problem isn't that a person is causing harm to the air, it's that he's causing harm to a person.  The problem with slavery isn't the abuse of whips or chains but the harm to a person.

The air is a communal resource that we decide how to use, weighing up the costs and benefits of each use.  The harm that is done to people through pollution is a necessary evil because of the benefits of power generation, or locomotion, or production.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2013, 01:00:51 PM
That's what gives ulmont's criticism some bite.
Person A says " i want to eat, I am going to take a fish from the lake"
Person B says " that lake is mine, pay for the right to take fish."
The state has to decide which claim to favor.

The state is not supposed to "take."  That's a negative right.  You can't ask the Supreme Court for redress when your car is boosted because your right to own it has been infringed. 

Law enforcement and courts are services which we have socialized, like national defense.  We don't have a "right" to not be invaded either.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2013, 03:33:14 PMWe don't have a "right" to not be invaded either.

Spoken like the citizen of a country with the most powerful military.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2013, 03:33:14 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2013, 01:00:51 PM
That's what gives ulmont's criticism some bite.
Person A says " i want to eat, I am going to take a fish from the lake"
Person B says " that lake is mine, pay for the right to take fish."
The state has to decide which claim to favor.

The state is not supposed to "take."  That's a negative right.   

I don't understand - where in this scenario is the state "taking" anything?

QuoteYou can't ask the Supreme Court for redress when your car is boosted because your right to own it has been infringed.

Of course you can get redress through a court - it is called an action for conversion.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2013, 03:41:27 PM
I don't understand - where in this scenario is the state "taking" anything?

It is not.

QuoteOf course you can get redress through a court - it is called an action for conversion.

Please tell me more.

Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2013, 03:35:12 PM
Spoken like the citizen of a country with the most powerful military.

And?

Yi - not sure what you are arguing.
It seems like you are making an assumption that property rights are in some way natural and pre-exist the state.  But maybe I have misunderstood.

Conversion - if property is taken illegally, the victim may bring a lawsuit against the perpetrator seeking the value of the property taken.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2013, 03:29:39 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2013, 10:11:04 AM
Water or air is simply the medium in which harm is inflicted.  The problem isn't that a person is causing harm to the air, it's that he's causing harm to a person.  The problem with slavery isn't the abuse of whips or chains but the harm to a person.

The air is a communal resource that we decide how to use, weighing up the costs and benefits of each use.  The harm that is done to people through pollution is a necessary evil because of the benefits of power generation, or locomotion, or production.

A necessary evil?  If Slavery was a necessary evil, that it was required for our economy then would that change the dynamics?  Slave owners seemed to think so.

What if slaves were not owned by individuals but a communal resource?  Say they worked in Gulags owned by the state or were were rented out to people like prisoners were in late 19th century and early 20th?  Would it then be somehow different?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2013, 05:27:04 PM
A necessary evil?

Yes.

QuoteIf Slavery was a necessary evil, that it was required for our economy then would that change the dynamics?

Yes.

QuoteWhat if slaves were not owned by individuals but a communal resource?  Say they worked in Gulags owned by the state or were were rented out to people like prisoners were in late 19th century and early 20th?  Would it then be somehow different?

Yes.  Emancipation probably would have come earlier and without bloodshed.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2013, 05:32:36 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2013, 05:27:04 PM
A necessary evil?

Yes.

QuoteIf Slavery was a necessary evil, that it was required for our economy then would that change the dynamics?

Yes.

QuoteWhat if slaves were not owned by individuals but a communal resource?  Say they worked in Gulags owned by the state or were were rented out to people like prisoners were in late 19th century and early 20th?  Would it then be somehow different?

Yes.  Emancipation probably would have come earlier and without bloodshed.

Very interesting Yi.  Honestly didn't expect you to agree to that.

How could you not?  The answer is contained in the hypothetical.  If slavery were a *necessary* evil your attitude would change too.  Same with infanticide, cannibalism, anything that we find abhorrent.  If we found them necessary, we would find them necessary.

Raz, you ever hear of a little event called World War II, where we led some twelve million men into involuntary servitude?

I believe those people were paid, nor was the war fought on the basis of maintaining an economic system.