Quote :

"I guess your point is there's something about being white that makes you able to be successful"

Kris, I was very specific. I used the words "I guess your point is". I was attempting to push their position to absurdity. At no point does their position become my own.

Quote :

"The "but they have no innovation and creativity" argument is old."

And bullshit. As a thoroughly capitalist society, Sweden is very innovative and creative. They must be, as they exist in a highly competitive environment. All high tax rates do is spur innovation and creativity when it comes to tax avoidance, which the Swedish have become masters of. And thanks to all the hidden wealth in the country, it looks on paper to be very equitable.

Government statistics, even in a thoroughly honest country, do not always reflect reality.

8/16/2011 9:50:02 AM

Quote :

"Kris, I was very specific. I used the words "I guess your point is". I was attempting to push their position to absurdity. At no point does their position become my own."

Well, assuming your point wasn't racist, then you were attempting to point out that everyone in Sweden is already middle class, which begs the question of "how did they get that way". Swedes didn't have a strong middle class from the beginning of time, something about their policies created and maintained it.

8/16/2011 9:57:33 AM

Loneshark why don't you show us the REAL Sweden wealth statistics that you're apparently privy to.

8/16/2011 10:01:11 AM

It was a paper analyzing the banking statistics of international banking after the war on terror made them semi-public (tracking down drug dealers...I mean terrorists!!) and finding per-capita bank account holdings by country were correlated with tax rates, Sweden was included in the analysis. This was evidence that tax avoidance is taking place in proportion to home tax rates, but no where near enough data to attempt to correct the government statistics. I doubt I could find it again, but do you really find it hard to believe greedy human beings would not respond to such an obvious incentive?

Quote :

"then you were attempting to point out that everyone in Sweden is already middle class, which begs the question of "how did they get that way""

Hundreds of years of unrestrained open capitalism. Just like everyone else that is middle class. Remember the philosophy of libertarians: poverty is a product of cultural, geographical, or legal restrictions imposed upon free exchange. If you find someone poor, then you need to look around for one of the three types of restrictions.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/16/2011 10:14:59 AM

Quote :

"I doubt I could find it again, but do you really find it hard to believe greedy human beings would not respond to such an obvious incentive? "

It doesn't matter if a few people do, what we're talking about is overall inequality and income mobility.

Quote :

"Remember the philosophy of libertarians: poverty is a product of cultural, geographical, or legal restrictions imposed upon free exchange. If you find someone poor, then you need to look around for one of the three types of restrictions."

I've never heard this come out of a libertarian before, but it's kind of hilarious, especially the cultural one. Take the plight of blacks, who are to this day suffering massively because of widespread discrimination in hiring and wages. Obviously this falls into the "cultural restriction" category, but libertarians of course would never do anything legal to prevent racism, since doing so would be tyranny!

8/16/2011 10:21:59 AM

Quote :

"Hundreds of years of unrestrained open capitalism. Just like everyone else that is middle class."

Haha what? This is just ignorant of history. Neither Sweden nor America had a middle class until they instituted social safety nets and welfare programs that stabilized middle classdom. The entire American middle class was a direct result of the GI Bill, The Marshall Plan, and the New Deal. It did not exist prior to those things. And there are pretty fucking clear causal links between providing education, overseas loans leading to business expansion, social safety nets and the establishment of a stable middle class.


[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .`]

8/16/2011 10:24:00 AM

I'm sure an American home owner in Baltimore with electricity and a car in 1910 will be surprised to learn they were not middle class (I read a biography recently. The book started by saying he was raised in a thoroughly American middle class household in Baltimore and started work at a newspaper at the age of 14, just like his dad).

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/16/2011 10:28:47 AM

=

8/16/2011 10:58:06 AM

8/16/2011 11:30:22 AM

The "liberal" answer to income inequality is always the same: raise taxes. It's simplistic and ignores the fact that the rich pay basically the same tax rate regardless of what the actual tax rate is.

The government is actively destroying the middle class. It's chasing labor overseas, and of course, corporate leadership stays here in the United States. We have a monetary system that literally funnels fresh money to the ultra-rich all over the globe. We have drug policies that are destroying communities all over North and South America, preventing the destitute from ever "bootstrapping" their way out.

Keep looking to the state as the only solution while ignoring all the problems that it creates...

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2011 12:10:46 PM

Quote :

"Also, believe it or not, regular people can turn a profit and create jobs too, much more easily when 1%ers they compete with actually are held to account for what they pocket."

Yeah, except when the government "TAXES THE ULTRARICH" they put those normal, upper middle class people in a higher tax bracket. For example, my friend's dad used to renovate houses and rent them out, which steadily employed about 4-5 people. However with current taxation policy, he was taxed an extra 60k. I'm sure the government can do much more good with that 60,000 than he could employing those 5 people. Great work taxing the ultrarich am I right? It's like destroyer says the 1% can barely even be touched they know the system too well, all you do is destroy the upper middle class, who in turn employees the lower and middle class. Do we really think that business owners would rather horde their money instead of putting it towards increasing their profit margin? Which would mean expansion and new jobs.

He even had to take out loans, I mean what a joke. He sure was hording money.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 12:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2011 12:37:15 PM

I'm sure his problems had nothing to do with the housing market going into the toilet in 2008.

And it has nothing to do with "knowing the system too well". It's that the system is geared specifically so that the rich can get richer. Those loopholes didn't get put their by accident or because someone carried a decimal wrong. It's because the USA is, and has been for a long a time, a country by the rich and for the rich.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 1:55 PM. Reason : :]

8/16/2011 1:48:03 PM

Quote :

"The "liberal" answer to income inequality is always the same: raise taxes. It's simplistic and ignores the fact that the rich pay basically the same tax rate regardless of what the actual tax rate is."

Quote :

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors. These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places. Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=buffett%20and%20taxes&st=cse

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ...]

8/16/2011 1:58:25 PM

^^I agree with that. The solution, then, is not to just tinker with tax rates - it's to change how taxes are collected entirely.

^I've seen that reposted so much in the past 12 hours that I basically have it memorized

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2011 2:08:12 PM

Quote :

"The "liberal" answer to income inequality is always the same: raise taxes. It's simplistic and ignores the fact that the rich pay basically the same tax rate regardless of what the actual tax rate is."

This is what you believe liberals believe, which isn't necessarily what liberals actually believe.

8/16/2011 6:39:57 PM

enlighten us

8/16/2011 6:54:22 PM

Quote :

"^I've seen that reposted so much in the past 12 hours that I basically have it memorized"

What's your opinion of Buffett's opinion?

8/16/2011 6:58:10 PM

I realize that. Some take a more nuanced view that is much more in line with my mine, which is that we need to drastically change the way revenue is collected and, obviously, how it is spent.

Quote :

"What's your opinion of Buffett's opinion?"

He calls for higher taxes, though I think by default, he's calling for higher taxes on individuals that are not nearly as rich as he is. He should be talking about changing the tax code, not just "the rich should pay more."

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2011 7:00:58 PM

Quote :

"But how long will we have the same GDP per capita if those who generate the top 1% no longer have reason to generate as much profit? How is anyone proposing exactly we reform this system, because to be honest, this thread just looks like a giant socialism equality circle jerk. It's like y0willy0 said:"

Just because they'll be making less than they were before doesn't mean they will just quit. They would still make enough to be very rich but you are assuming they will have the childish"if i can't have it all then i quit" attitude. In that case, someone will gladly make that income in their place.

Quote :

" The "liberal" answer to income inequality is always the same: raise taxes. It's simplistic and ignores the fact that the rich pay basically the same tax rate regardless of what the actual tax rate is."

The answer is really just to level the playing field. It does take money to make it so that everyone can come up in a safe environment without having to worry about their health or next meal.

Quote :

" Yeah, except when the government "TAXES THE ULTRARICH" they put those normal, upper middle class people in a higher tax bracket. "

republicans force this as an intentional compromise so they will have more than just 1% of the country on their side whenn they rabble about lowering taxes come election time.

8/16/2011 7:03:19 PM

Quote :

"I realize that."

Then don't say shit like that. It's no more productive than pretending aaronburro's views are representative of all conservatives.

Quote :

"The answer is really just to level the playing field."

I'd be curious to hear you expand on this.

8/16/2011 7:23:15 PM

Quote :

"In their study for the World Institute for Development Economics Research, Giovanni Andrea Cornia and Julius Court (2001) reach policy conclusions as to the optimal distribution of income.[45] They conclude that too much equality (below a Gini coefficient of .25) negatively impacts growth due to "incentive traps, free-riding, labour shirking, [and] high supervision costs". They also claim that high levels of inequality (above a Gini coefficient of .40) negatively impacts growth, due to "incentive traps, erosion of social cohesion, social conflicts, [and] uncertain property rights". They advocate for policies which put equality at the low end of this "efficient" range."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

8/16/2011 9:45:53 PM

Europe appears to have much less income disparity. Lets examine what they're doing differently.

8/17/2011 1:50:34 AM

^ Not at all. European income disparity (calculated EU wide) was comparable to American (calculated US wide). The people of eastern Europe really push down the bottom of income disparity while Switzerland and Monaco really push up the top. Kinda how rural counties and ethnic minorities push down the bottom and Beverly Hills increases the top.

8/17/2011 2:20:39 AM

The difference is, all of the rich people in the US live near poor people. Beverly Hills is a stones throw from Compton, South central and East LA. Geneva doesn't exactly have huge, hopeless ghettos.

This puts greater pressures on the poor. Income differences cause the poor to want to live like the rich people they see all the time and that is a huge problem in the US.

8/17/2011 7:07:27 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, except when the government "TAXES THE ULTRARICH" they put those normal, upper middle class people in a higher tax bracket. For example, my friend's dad used to renovate houses and rent them out, which steadily employed about 4-5 people. However with current taxation policy, he was taxed an extra 60k. I'm sure the government can do much more good with that 60,000 than he could employing those 5 people. Great work taxing the ultrarich am I right? It's like destroyer says the 1% can barely even be touched they know the system too well, all you do is destroy the upper middle class, who in turn employees the lower and middle class. Do we really think that business owners would rather horde their money instead of putting it towards increasing their profit margin? Which would mean expansion and new jobs. He even had to take out loans, I mean what a joke. He sure was hording money."

Why should we have to break our debate around these arbitrary bracket lines? As you can see, they've changed plenty over time. Why not simply change them back and start distinguishing between your friend's dad and a multi-millionaire?

The reduction in the number of tax brackets was, of course, a deliberate attempt to entangle the interests of people who normally have no political unity whatsoever. Your story is an example of the sort of amazing unity it can grant your friend's dad (and the people who know him, apparently) with the ultra-rich. We should distinguishing between the amount of money your friend's dad makes and, say, earnings over 5 million dollars, don't you think? The discussion should be about the number of tax brackets (giving us more power to distinguish between levels of earnings) so that your friend's dad (and everyone he knows who likes him) is not so blatantly manipulated into fighting for the interests of a wholly different class.

8/17/2011 8:25:20 AM

1. Make college free to everyone.
2. Colleges must accept all applicants.
3. Colleges must pass EVERYONE regardless of effort, attendance, or grades (just like current public schools).
4. Guarantee a middle class wage to all who graduate (everyone).


Maybe then the minorities can move up in class. (90% of them still won't do this. Too content smoking and drinking on their porch bitching about middle class whites).

8/17/2011 9:12:35 AM

I'll take one more swing at this and hope you guys can actually read.

1)

Quote :

"You're right. It takes a lot of work to be born into a white middle class family in a relatively affluent and educated part of the country. Too bad most people are too lazy to put in that effort."

You might as well adjust this to "be born not black" on average, Hispanic house holds have 13% higher income then African-American and all Asian house holds kick the crap out of everyone (I'm sure this has nothing to due with massive cultural pressure to succeed educationally).

2) 2 working adults that have managed to achieve assistant store manager level at freaking Wendy's would have an combined house hold income average of 63k. Lets look at this again, You and your spouse/partner both manage to become assistant store manager at a fast freaking food chain will put you in the top 35% of income earning house holds. This is a job obtainable by nearly anyone willing to put in a moderate amount of care into actual doing a McJob for a few years.

3) Its not a boot strap argument its a be a god damn parent argument. The Government though entitlement programs can not make a shithead into a decent parent. All that is really required to succeed in this country is having someone teach your kid good idea/bad idea judgment abilities and the value of hard freaking work (something that's hard to teach if you are currently being given housing, food, etc and aren't actually having to work to not be starving and homeless)

8/17/2011 9:35:15 AM

Quote :

"1. Make college free to everyone. 2. Colleges must accept all applicants. 3. Colleges must pass EVERYONE regardless of effort, attendance, or grades (just like current public schools). 4. Guarantee a middle class wage to all who graduate (everyone)."

This is a great way to make college completely worthless and wreck the economy for generations to come.

8/17/2011 10:53:29 AM

^

8/17/2011 10:58:18 AM

Quote :

"1. Make college free to everyone. 2. Colleges must accept all applicants. 3. Colleges must pass EVERYONE regardless of effort, attendance, or grades (just like current public schools). 4. Guarantee a middle class wage to all who graduate (everyone). "

How about we make college free to anyone who can pass a national standardized test. That way nobody is shorted a future because they weren't born into riches and nobody gets a free ride who doesn't deserve it?

8/17/2011 11:08:24 AM

because then the income disparity would grow between people with advanced degrees and those with 4 year degrees, and then you would want the advanced degrees to be free as well.

its never enough.

there will always be "haves" and "have nots"

8/17/2011 11:41:43 AM

Quote :

"all Asian house holds kick the crap out of everyone ."

Actually, they don't. There's an illusion about Asians created when you compare their income to other races on the national scale where they appear to make more. Fact is that they tend to live in high cost-of-living urban areas and when you restrict comparison to people living in the same cities, they're typically making as much as 40% less than whites with the exact same qualifications in the same area.

Quote :

"(I'm sure this has nothing to due with massive cultural pressure to succeed educationally)"

Actually it has more to do with the fact that Asian immigrants typically come from well-to-do families overseas, as opposed to Blacks, who were brought here in chains and had their culture and families destroyed by slavery, or Mexicans who flee on foot from near-absolute poverty.

8/17/2011 11:45:35 AM

Quote :

"because then the income disparity would grow between people with advanced degrees and those with 4 year degrees, and then you would want the advanced degrees to be free as well."

So make advanced degrees free as well to those who can meet the standards. Nobody should be denied an education because of a lack of wealth. Seeing as education is itself the means of advancing yourself into wealth, letting its attainment be restricted according to your means is essentially an establishment of self-perpetuating aristocracy.

Quote :

"its never enough."

Actually, in Finland, everything short of a PHD is absolutely free, even to foreign students, and they're doing just fine. In fact, Finland does far better than the US in standardized testing, have a much more equitable income distribution, and higher overall satisfaction with life as reported by its citizens.

Quote :

" there will always be "haves" and "have nots""

Probably, that doesn't say anything about what the spread should be between the two.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 11:46:54 AM

^^^^That would be wonderful. It doesn't have to free, but the cost should not be a barrier for entry to anyone but people who literally have 0 dollars to their name, and in those cases it should be free. I was in Canada a couple weekends ago and one of my cousins was outright shocked when I told them how much my parents paid for my education at a public university. It was roughly 1 semester for me = a 4 year degree for her. Of course, Canada doesn't have a giant military industrial complex that constantly needs fresh bodies. These are the choices facing a high school grad these days who wants a college education but who's parents can't afford it. They can,

A. Work 2 part times jobs while going to school part time. Hope they never get sick. Hope their car never breaks down. Hope they never get robbed/stabbed/shot due to having to live in a low rent neighborhood. Hope they never accidentally get knocked up or knock someone up. Hope they have enough time to actually do their school work. Then maybe, in roughly 6-8 years they'll graduate with a mediocre degree, with mediocre grades, from a mediocre university and struggle to find a job in our currently shit economy.

B. Join the military for 2 years. Maybe get shipped overseas and get crippled or die defending some arbitrary corporate or political special interest (although the chances of this are considerably lower than the aforementioned risks of part time school and work). After their service, they get a free ride to a great university and upon graduation have a much better chance of finding a private sector job or have guaranteed work in the government/military.

All because we'd rather spend $1 trillion a year on sending kids to the Middle East instead of spending a fraction of that on sending them to college.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM. Reason : :]

8/17/2011 11:54:41 AM

if its that important to them there's always distance ed, night school and community college while trying to climb the ladder at a McJob (many of which offer tuition reimbursement these days because it gets them better and more loyal employees)

8/17/2011 3:44:28 PM

there seems to be a lot of ppl in this thread who are "glass half empty" type of people.

8/17/2011 4:19:49 PM

Quote :

"That would be wonderful. It doesn't have to free, but the cost should not be a barrier for entry to anyone but people who literally have 0 dollars to their name, and in those cases it should be free. I was in Canada a couple weekends ago and one of my cousins was outright shocked when I told them how much my parents paid for my education at a public university. It was roughly 1 semester for me = a 4 year degree for her. Of course, Canada doesn't have a giant military industrial complex that constantly needs fresh bodies. These are the choices facing a high school grad these days who wants a college education but who's parents can't afford it. They can,"

The problem is that it's never actually free. When anyone says something like college (or anything else) should be free, what they mean to say is that someone other than the consumer should be required to pay for it. Obviously, the universities are not going to build themselves, professors are not going to volunteer, etc. There are costs involved. Someone has to cover the costs.

Easy enough though, right? The taxpayer pays, which I'm sure you have no objection to. Problem solved.

The problem isn't solved, though, because with state-provided education, an assortment of necessary market feedback mechanisms have been removed from the system. The student is completely disconnected from the real cost of their education. This is clearly already the case, to some degree - look at the disparity between primary education, secondary education, and higher education. The "free" school is the laughing stock of the developed world and getting worse, despite attempts by the federal government to raise standards. The "non-free" school is really good (uhh...sometimes, but our loan based model has its own problems).

Why is that? Public primary/secondary school is accessible to anyone. This has been touted endlessly by the big-government left: if you provide a service to all people for free, it's supposed to get cheaper and better. What we actually get is public administrators that get paid way too much and really, really dumb kids.

People tend not to value goods or services that are free (for them) as highly as things that they themselves had to pay for and sacrifice for. For instance, most kids don't truly respect the things that their parents buy. They track mud on the floor, they spill food/drink, they get bored of toys quickly and want more. Most change their tune quickly once they're cut off from their parents and making it on their own, because getting "stuff" means getting less of other "stuff."

Higher education should require personal sacrifice. It needs to require sacrifice in order to remain valuable. Otherwise, you're going to end up with 4 extra years of "learning" and an increasingly stupid population.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 4:35:32 PM

I could not disagree more. It is not because consumers don't appreciate free education that free education sucks. Firms care about what they need to care about. If you run a company then you care about how to best please your customers. The problem will free education is that the customer stops being the students and becomes government bureaucrats. The things you must do to please government bureaucrats are different from the things you must do to please students.

As students (and their parents) have paid less and less for school, the percentage of college expenditures related to students has fallen, as the number of administrators and office staff necessary to handle the reporting requirements of their government customer has taken priority over teaching staff, classrooms, etc.

Students and their parents (whichever one is paying) want marketable skills. Buraucrats want paperwork, control, and sheer quantity of students, they don't have any incentive to care that the education provided was either good or even useful. Just so long as the paperwork is filled out in triplicate.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/17/2011 4:54:40 PM

Quote :

"Hope they never accidentally get knocked up or knock someone up."

yes, because it's so hard not to get someone pregnant / not get pregnant. I mean, i remember the other day I walked into a bar and my dick magically went inside this chick and I busted a nut and got her preggers. I just walked into a bar and it happened. man, it's crazy!

Quote :

"That would be wonderful. It doesn't have to free, but the cost should not be a barrier for entry to anyone but people who literally have 0 dollars to their name, and in those cases it should be free."

so, if you have some money and are really bright, there should be a barrier, but if you are dead broke and dumb as a stick, fuck it, you're in. That's a recipe for success.

Quote :

"So make advanced degrees free as well to those who can meet the standards."

Sure, let's go ahead and devalue higher, higher education, too! Let's give PhD's in underwater basket-weaving to football players! Everyone deserves free shit!!! No way that will backfire!

8/17/2011 5:41:10 PM

Quote :

"I mean, i remember the other day I walked into a bar and my dick magically went inside this chick and I busted a nut and got her preggers. I just walked into a bar and it happened. man, it's crazy!"

you say this as a joke but thats pretty much exactly how it happens dude.

8/17/2011 5:58:43 PM

i know. that's why I was so shocked! I just walked in the bar and not 5 seconds later the bitch was pregnant. it's insane! i was just sitting at a table and this bitch magically got pregnant. we need to do something to fix this!

8/17/2011 6:01:26 PM

You would have to ban alcohol. Alcohol impairs judgement so the moment I walk and and drink to the point where my judgement is a little impaired, I drink more and it gets really impaired. At this point, the establishment that served said alcohol should be responsible for whatever I do. Now if some chick seduces me, I don't have my own judgement so I'm going with her and bam I wake up with a future baby momma.

8/17/2011 6:14:11 PM

i didn't even drink! I just walked in and literally 5 seconds later
1 Mississippi...
2 Mississippi...
3 Mississippi...
4 Mississippi...
5 Mississippi...

bitch is pregnant. didn't even pull my pants down or my zipper down. i was lookin over at my buddy across the room and then this is magically pregnant. i didn't even bust a nut!

8/17/2011 6:35:30 PM

Quote :

"You might as well adjust this to "be born not black" on average, Hispanic house holds have 13% higher income then African-American and all Asian house holds kick the crap out of everyone (I'm sure this has nothing to due with massive cultural pressure to succeed educationally)."

The point was that social and economic mobility are influenced by things other than working hard and failing to make poor decisions.

Quote :

"2) 2 working adults that have managed to achieve assistant store manager level at freaking Wendy's would have an combined house hold income average of 63k. Lets look at this again, You and your spouse/partner both manage to become assistant store manager at a fast freaking food chain will put you in the top 35% of income earning house holds. This is a job obtainable by nearly anyone willing to put in a moderate amount of care into actual doing a McJob for a few years."

This is great until someone gets hurt, laid off, pregnant, life happens, etc. Then that family of two (maybe 3) falls from the top 35% to the bottom 35%. This also ignores the fact that not everyone can be manager, and manager is not really obtainable for 'nearly anyone', willing or not. Someone has to flip the burgers and fry the fries.

What happens then? Perhaps our fantastic social safety nets will help them once their savings quickly run out. Oh, wait...

Quote :

"3) Its not a boot strap argument its a be a god damn parent argument. The Government though entitlement programs can not make a shithead into a decent parent. All that is really required to succeed in this country is having someone teach your kid good idea/bad idea judgment abilities and the value of hard freaking work (something that's hard to teach if you are currently being given housing, food, etc and aren't actually having to work to not be starving and homeless)"

...you're not a fan of social safety nets because they're all shitheads.

8/17/2011 6:42:26 PM

Quote :

"The point was that social and economic mobility are influenced by things other than working hard and failing to make poor decisions."

influenced? sure. completely controlled? absolutely not.

8/17/2011 6:46:08 PM

Nobody ever argued it was completely controlled by those factors

8/17/2011 6:47:20 PM

Quote :

"This is great until someone gets hurt, laid off, pregnant, life happens, etc. Then that family of two (maybe 3) falls from the top 35% to the bottom 35%."

Well, lets see, there's getting insurance for the health thing. Planning the whole having a kid thing with a saved nest egg and plan (as opposed to the wh00ps approach). Saving should be priority #1 for people (with smart phones and such 48th as opposed to the other way around). Hell I nearly got laid off this month which caused me to look over my finances very closely to see what would happen and i realized over the last 5 years i've squirreled enough away to cover myself for ~30 months of my current expense run rate. Budget for savings 1st not spending 1st and you would be amazed how much better off you are in the long run

Quote :

" This also ignores the fact that not everyone can be manager, and manager is not really obtainable for 'nearly anyone', willing or not. Someone has to flip the burgers and fry the fries."

Yes, someone has to be at the bottom but hopefully you can move up from there. But when you are talking about industries with employee turn over rates measured in months the guy that sticks around and works towards moving up will move up.

Quote :

" What happens then? Perhaps our fantastic social safety nets will help them once their savings quickly run out. Oh, wait..."

Right back to priority on savings so that that doesn't run out quickly. And to be honest, the guy that's at work on time/early every day works hard and is always trying to advance himself is generally the last guy let go and when/if that happens can generally land on his feet with recommendations and a good resume.

Quote :

" ...you're not a fan of social safety nets because they're all shitheads."

There are nets and then there's the social safety couch that you all seem to want where people that sit on the ass watching tv and eating bonbons all day are still afforded anything they want (housing, food, cell phones, college eduction, medical care, child care, high speed internet, cheap quality coke and weed, etc)

8/17/2011 7:17:07 PM

Quote :

"And to be honest, the guy that's at work on time/early every day works hard and is always trying to advance himself is generally the last guy let go and when/if that happens can generally land on his feet with recommendations and a good resume."

unless you're in a union shop, lol

Quote :

"Nobody ever argued it was completely controlled by those factors"

hardly. plenty on here have bitched and moaned about how you can't move up unless you are a white male. hell, this thread, itself, basically proves it.

8/17/2011 8:02:19 PM

Quote :

"Well, lets see[...]"

Here are some words you used: 'should', 'nearly', 'hopefully', 'And to be honest', 'trying', 'generally', 'when/if', 'generally', and the assumption nobody saves.

Clearly you recognize things don't always happen the way you would like them to. I hope you also recognize that even if you save, it can still run out.

We can go back and forth all day 'What if...' 'Oh, but they should have...'

But, I'm not sure that's going to change your view that people only fail or fall on hard times because they don't work hard and don't save.

Quote :

"There are nets and then there's the social safety couch that you all seem to want where people that sit on the ass watching tv and eating bonbons all day are still afforded anything they want (housing, food, cell phones, college eduction, medical care, child care, high speed internet, cheap quality coke and weed, etc)"

I'm not sure who you're talking to.

8/17/2011 8:29:51 PM

Quote :

"You would have to ban alcohol. Alcohol impairs judgement so the moment I walk and and drink to the point where my judgement is a little impaired, I drink more and it gets really impaired. At this point, the establishment that served said alcohol should be responsible for whatever I do."

Really?????? So anyone that got drunk at a bar and got a DUI should blame it on the bar. No personal responsibility? Anyone that does anything illegal at a bar while drunk should say the bar is responsible? Are you really that stupid?

8/18/2011 8:16:04 PM