|
|
Quote:
That would depend what part of the country you live in. In London I could get by without owning a car, but in a lot of Scotland a car is essential. London has an awesome public transport system, but it is terrible up here. In the rare occasion that it works for me in Scotland, I always end up either getting delayed or sharing a carriage with an angry drunk. |
Quote:
You guys should probably get taxis instead of using horses. Having doors you have to open helps to keep out the drunks. |
Quote:
In Atlanta they've voted it down so many times it's comical. Our highways now have 7 lanes in them and it still takes an hour to go 10 miles. But the prospect of poorer people having access to the suburbs has people scared. The funny thing is, anyone who goes to Gwinnett county now (one of the aforementioned burbs) can see the huge influx of the feared "lower" classes thanks to the drug trade. |
Quote:
Eliminate the enormous amounts of crap that the government shouldn't be involved in, then we'll see where we're at. |
Quote:
Yeah, the comical ineptitude of the existing system couldn't have anything to do with the resistance. |
But the people who use the roads the most should be the ones paying for them. So I don't have a problem with taxing them to use them (directly or indirectly). It also has the added bonus of incentivizing people to use more fuel efficient cars or alternative energy cars which will save us tax dollars from not having to invade shitholes in the Middle East for oil.
|
Quote:
Not necessarily the drug trade, but because due to the massive time expense it takes to commute into the city, a lot of suburbanites have moved back into the city (hence the gentrification of places like Little 5 Points, East Atlanta, etc) and Gwinnett's property values have gone down. Making it easier for poorer minorities to afford to live there (and they'll deal with the traffic). |
Quote:
of course, if we would develop our own resources and approve Keystone XL... |
Quote:
And that would lead to even higher gas prices. |
I know how Keystone is good for the oil companies, but I don't know how it benefits everybody else.
|
Because there isn't a thread for news so stupid and depressing it makes me want to scream.
Quote:
|
Quote:
There's ignorant and then there's willfully ignorant. Only one has a cure. |
Yup, I like what Obama is doing, low risk and helping strengthen relationships with France. But it is somewhat puzzling, you would think France would not like this dependency ... why don't they just buy the drones from us.
Obama deploys drones, US military personnel to Niger - U.S. News Quote:
|
At least this way, its the Americans who are using drones (and no one likes drones) ;).
|
Quote:
Nice quote. Too bad you didn't include the source. Did you even read the bill before you posted this? I'd guess not. |
From the bill:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh no! Just because a student doesn't believe in something that hasn't been proven and is a theory, they won't be penalized! What's your point? Just stop while you're behind. You were in an uproar and wanted to scream over something you knew nothing about. Now that you've read (maybe) the bill, you cherry pick a quote that is quite harmless. Look at the bill. There is nothing objectionable in it. |
All illnesses are caused by imbalances in humours.
The HIV virus does not cause AIDS. You can't get pregnant if you do it standing up. According to the bill in question these answers would probably have to be given at least partial credit if the student questioned the teacher's assessment as incorrect. Perhaps the state school board's standards would allow questions that get to the right answer, but the wording of this bill is so poor that there will be all kinds of challenges. "May not be penalized in any way" is very strong and clear language. The previous section of "Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials," is much more vague. |
Quote:
Do you understand science? When you say "theory", its not in any way to akin to the way "theory" is used by your buddy to explain how he got home after drinking too much last night. Evolution is real - I cannot believe that a civilized society needs this discussion to occur. |
Quote:
Maybe he was educated in Oklahoma? |
Quote:
Classic. |
Quote:
Nothing like setting yourself up for a lifetime of mediocrity or less. |
I know this is common in state legislatures, but I still find section four to be funny.
Quote:
There's a Darwin emergency!!!! |
Quote:
Theory in science and 'theory' in every day usage is very different - a scientific theory is basically proven and far different to my theory regarding why I have so many odd socks in my drawers. Quote:
|
What does that word salad even mean? That it goes into affect as soon as it gets voted on and passes?
|
Quote:
Yes. A lot of states have laws that keep a passed bill from going into effect until a certain number of months passes or the next legislature is voted in, but there's always a public emergency exception that allows a bill to become law immediately. |
Quote:
Nice to see they take non punishment so seriously there that it requires an emergency enacting. :) |
I can remember when "don't ask don't tell" was a major milestone in gay rights albeit wasn't near enough for the gay supporters (but best Clinton thought he could do at the time).
Look at where we are now ... almost there. History books will remember Obama for his gay rights advocacy. Obama administration weighs in on defense of marriage law - CNN.com Quote:
|
Where is the like button?
|
he he he, the article said 'oral'. heh heh heh
|
I like Michelle. Not the traditional first lady.
Michelle Obama and Jimmy Fallon show off their mom dance moves on 'Late Night' - The Clicker Quote:
|
Quote:
He just followed the changing U.S. culture and didn't become outspoken until it made political sense to do so. There's been plenty of expressed disappointment in the gay community about Obama's words and actions in his first term. He didn't show any courage at all, the real change was the result of individuals - a million little cultural victories happening everywhere (people having the courage to come out, people having the courage and insight to look past their former prejudices, etc.) That's how culture changes, when a lot of real people change individually, its not anything that happens in Washington. Obama joined up only when it was popular to do so. |
Quote:
I think you are both right. I'm not sure if Obama really believes in his first-term position or his current position, but he is definitely matching his public opinion with popular opinion. Having said that, history books will probably match Obama with the growing gay-rights movement. Right time, right place. |
Quote:
I agree with this too. Unfortunately, history usually credits the Presidents for these changes when in fact it was many of the other figures who pushed over the years against unpopular sentiment to get to where things are. You can say the same about the Civil Rights Act which only got pushed when it was a popular move. |
When Obama came out for gay marriage, no state had rejected a gay marriage ban. Not even liberal California. There's no doubt it was politically safer than it would've been in 2008, but to say that it wasn't still a divisive issue just isn't true. He was opposed almost by the GOP on ending DADT. The GOP platform still had a anti-gay message. If Obama lost everything he's done would've taken at least 4 years longer and probably more. Also consider the effect Obama had on African-American support for gays. It's fair to say he should've acted sooner, but to say he just rode the coattails of the movement and deserves no credit for the progress over the last 4 years is just ludicrous.
|
Quote:
Why do you think he waited so long then if he was going to be the force (or one of the major forces) that changed America's view on this ? Why were so many elected Democrats also so cowardly on this? (I actually asked this earlier in the thread, and the general consensus - including from liberal posters - was that it just made sense politically, which is all I'm saying now.) Giving Obama credit for this is kind of insulting to the people who took strong stands in their own lives and communities before it was easy to do - and the tiny handful of elected politicians who stood out when it wasn't yet popular and politically beneficial to do so. Edit: Looking around a little on this, you're one of the few strong gay-rights supporters I've seen that want to give Obama really any credit for cultural change in this country the last few years. Obama didn't come out in support of gay marriage publicly, unequivocally until MAY 2012! The train had LONG ago left the station by then. I can accept the argument that in a practical sense, that's just how it had to be and he did come around eventually, but not an argument that he deserves any significant credit for the changing cultural views over the 5-10 years before that, that's just preposterous. I give Obama credit for being publicly opposed to the Iraq war before it was the cool thing to do, and he deserves that legacy, but he also deserves the legacy of not supporting gay marriage until May 2012. |
Quote:
Support has come along way in support of gay marriage even over the last 4 years. It's jumped like 10 percent looking back at some of the polls. |
Quote:
The initial statement you responded to was that history will remember Obama for his gay rights advocacy. That seems to bother you and I don't understand why unless you just have an irrational hatred of Obama and don't want him to get credit for anything. He was fought stringently on Don't Ask Don't Tell and on reversing the Justice Department's position on DOMA. When he came out in support of gay marriage, North Carolina had just voted for a gay marriage ban, becoming the 30th state to do so without a single state popularly supporting gay marriage up to that point. In 2010, three Iowa justices were voted off the court for ruling in favor of same sex marriage (a move you supported). A poll on May 8th (when you say the train had left the station) showed unanimous support for the issue This was the atmosphere in May 2012 when you allege that it was such an easy and popular position to take. This article here (Polls Show Obama's Support For Gay Marriage Influencing Blacks : It's All Politics : NPR) demonstrates how Obama's announcement had a profound effect on African-American support for marriage equality. I've never denied that Obama made a political decision to wait until it was more acceptable. But just because he did that doesn't mean it was this settled, universally popular measure when he finally did it. You seem to be operating in a very limited framework where either it was completely a political decision or politics were not involved at all As I said in the post you responded to, it is fair to criticize Obama for not acting sooner on certain issues. But he did eventually act, and all I'm arguing is that he deserves credit for finally taking those actions. He deserves credit for ending DADT. He deserves credit for attacking DOMA. He deserves credit for coming out in favor of gay marriage. History will (and should) remember him for doing those things. That doesn't mean he's the driving force or one of the major driving forces of changing people's minds over the last 5-10 years (not sure how you read that from my post), but it certainly means that saying he deserves no credit for those things is completely ludicrous. |
He didn't hinder gay rights and he did probably modestly help them particularly with his influence in the black community, but it would be unfortunate if the "history books" remembered him as this leading gay rights activist, which was the sentiment I was responding to. Nobody who didn't publicly support gay marriage until May 2012 should have that legacy, IMO.
|
Quote:
I don't recall supporting the result of the vote but I did think, and still do think, that gay marriage is state issue and not something mandated by the federal constitution, and I certainly support the rights of individuals and states to oppose gay marriage. I think the U.S. culture is plenty effective enough at effectuating actual long-lasting change, and culture, rather than law, is the only way to really change people's views. A million gay people coming out, and demanding acceptance, and earning acceptance from their own families and communities, and those families and communities getting over themselves and realizing that the world won't end if people are openly gay, and even marry, is a lot more effective at changing people's views than a court telling everybody they have to think and act a certain way, again, IMO. |
Quote:
If a court rules for marriage equality tomorrow, then people are free to act and think the same way they do then as they are now, so I'm not sure how that statement makes any sense. And as I've said before, I agree that change throughout society is important, but at some point the court has to come in and put the final stamp on it. If we had waited for state by state change during the civil rights movement, who knows how long it would've taken Kansas and other states to end segregation or Virginia and other states to allow interracial marriage. I'm not going to subject my friends to the whims of what the rest of backwards Georgia thinks. They shouldn't have to wait however long it takes for GA to catch up with the rest of the country before their marriage is legally recognized. And the person in the original article has to pay a higher estate tax now, so waiting for Republicans to approve a DOMA repeal doesn't really make sense in her case, as by then it would be too late. Eventually it becomes time for the court to act, and that time is now. |
Interesting article on the sequester blame-game.
Bob Woodward: Obama’s sequester deal-changer - The Washington Post Quote:
|
A quick response rebutting Woodward.
On the sequester, the American people ‘moved the goalposts’ Quote:
|
My company is facing a $17 million budget deficit this year due to the drought (water restrictions = less revenues). Management went to each department head and asked for cuts. Within each department, we offered up cuts either through reductions or deferring projects. (In my case, we could give up our capital project for new servers to run my upcoming web GIS apps.) Every department, every section offered up savings and will reach the goal eventually. Management did not automatically lop X% out of each department's budget because that would be stupid. But if there has to be cuts, then we will work to find them and everyone shares in the reductions.
It seems that the federal department's mindset (including military) is not only refuse to cut but would turn around and ask for even more money. If management of large (public, private) companies can work together cut budgets, what prevents Congress from doing the same? |
Quote:
It makes perfect sense, but it appears that the sense of entitlement isn't limited to our citizens. The government sectors/workers are just as bad, if not worse. I worked in the government in multiple posts for six years. There wasn't an area I saw where we couldn't have continued to function normally with a 20% labor cut. |
That could well be. What I fear with our government entity though is that if cuts come down, they will end up landing disproportionately on contractors (like myself), because, well, we're only contractors. Never mind that the bulk of the IT work is done by contractors* - and at least on our contract we are already spread pretty thin.
* More and more call center people seem to be contractors these days too, vs union staff. The lawyer brigade though, they're certainly not contracted out. |
Quote:
Your company probably has a structure where the buck stops somewhere - if two people disagree, than someone higher up settles it. There's some mechanism where decisions are actually made, good or bad. Our government doesn't have that. |
Most departments don't have discretion to allocate cuts. They have to be made across the board due to congressional authority in spending. Departments don't have anywhere near the authority to allocate spending as in the private sector, largely because most people don't want spending decisions being made outside of the political process.
|
Quote:
Absolutely. I was a contractor during that time. They justify the mass hiring of contractors because they don't have to pay benefits or retirement to contractors. There's still a big chunk of union entitlement in the gov't. It's one of the last footholds where the union still has some control, and not surprisingly, one of the most expensive and wasteful organizations as a result. I've never seen so many lazy people in my life. And as you say, they often pass the buck to the contractors to make sure their work load remains relatively light. |
Quote:
Quote:
My bad on this one. I read that differently in that they could challenge theories BASED on scientific proof, not any opinion. My apologies. |
I struggle with this ... his Senate hearing was a mess.
Hagel confirmation battle: bruised but standing - CNN.com Quote:
|
Quote:
No hard feelings. |
Thanks for understanding. I feel like an idiot, which is somewhat apropos since I live in Oklahoma.
Please no Raiders jokes. |
I've been there, too.
Please no Bengals jokes. |
Me too. Please no Razorbacks or Petrino jokes!
|
I saw this and found it interesting. It's a chart of an aggregate of hundreds of survey questions providing a rough gauge of public support for government intervention. The interesting part is that the public mood moves in the opposite direction of the party controlling the White House.
 |
Quote:
I think thats largely to be expected tbh - most people like to see things as black and white, good and bad ... When your ideology isn't in power its easier to see it as the perfect solution and be passionate about it, when it is you're forced to admit that it might not be the be all and end all you'd prefer it to be. (for most things imho the perfect solution is probably 'somewhere in the middle ground' ...) |
AQ #3 died again. Time to reshuffle the depth charts.
French and Chadian forces battling Islamist militants in Mali's remote northeastern mountains are believed to have killed a top al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb commander known as Abdelhamid Abou Zeid, though the fate of at least four French hostages that Abou Zeid was thought to be holding nearby remains unknown. Chad's president says Abou Zeid and another al-Qaida commander were among those killed in ongoing military operations in the area. French authorities are not confirming the reports. The Algerian-born jihadist, if his death is confirmed, could be a significant blow in the ongoing war against the al-Qaida-linked rebels who seized control of northern Mali last April. Zeid has been described as inflexible, cruel, violent, audacious, intelligent, radical and without pity. He was born in Algeria and commands a southern battalion of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, known as AQIM. His command is known to be one of AQIM's most radical factions. |
The buildup to 2014 congressional elections.
Stymied by a GOP House, Obama looks ahead to 2014 to cement his legacy - The Washington Post Quote:
|
Not gonna happen.
|
Aren't they expected to need about 55% of all votes across the country to retake the house? Hard to see that happening.
|
it's all about turnout, and turnout can beat how badly these assholes have gerrymandered the districts. Just looking at my district specifically, 280k people vote in presidential elections, and only about 200k vote in the off year. If you can get more of your people to show up from the previous election, you have a fighting chance.
|
Quote:
I think it's closer to 57%. That won't happen in an off year election. |
The details are unclear, but I'm all for the shareholder rights and transparency provisions required under a new Swiss referendum. From Talkingpointsmemo:
Quote:
|
If history is any indication, the approvals will be few and far between, most stuck in limbo.
I wonder if this will really "cement a legacy". Judge Roberts really didn't cement GWB's legacy. Obama pushing to diversify federal judiciary amid GOP delays - The Washington Post Quote:
|
This is the pathetic part of this latest issue. There is all kinds of pork available to be trimmed and somehow they can't find a way to target $85B in cuts that make meaningful changes. Instead, we get really smart cuts like this.......
Quote:
By imposing a foolish deadline rather than making good decisions, they've further demonstrated that the executive and legislative branch are shockingly devoid of any real leadership. It's embarrassing and everyone should be ashamed of the job their doing at a time when leadership is needed now more than ever. |
Guantanamo Bay needs more residents!
Bin Laden's son-in-law, once al Qaeda's 'mouthpiece,' held by U.S. - CNN.com Quote:
|
I always wonder how Peter King can cover the NFL and be a representative.
|
Keep up that war against women's reproductive rights, Arkansas GOP.
Arkansas GOP eyes Planned Parenthood funds next - Yahoo! News They may want to consult Texas to see how well it worked out for them before doing so though: Texas May Restore Some Family-Planning Budget Cuts - NYTimes.com |
I know its a thankless job but I don't get why Holder didn't just come out and say it before the filibuster.
Rand Paul gets his answer - First Read Quote:
|
Quote:
Umm ... at this point in his career does that really require an answer beyond "he's a useless twit on his best days"? And I say that as someone who isn't particularly disturbed by the notion of using drones on U.S. soil (only disturbed by concerns about who happens to be using them). |
Quote:
Actually it's the "crazy" son. Sad that only about 5 republicans and 1 democrat came to support someone asking questions about using drones over US soil against American citizens. The GOP has always been pretty useless for the most part but the Democrats used to at least have some principles every now and then. Wish Romney would have won and then Reid would have been up in arms with Pelosi and all the regular characters. Good god does ether party care about anything but getting reelected and "holding serve" anymore? |
Quote:
I was talking about Holder actually (not sure if that was clear). Quote:
Actually I'd say that both parties have kinda figured out that there's not a shortage of folks that need killin' ... they just have serious differences about who is on the list. |
Quote:
My understanding is that this particular question wasn't in the list that Paul submitted. I'm fine with the filibuster and Holder gave the right answer, IMO, but instead of grandstanding congress should legislate against this shit. This answer doesn't mean shit if Obama or another president decides to change things. The only possibility of stopping this is for congress to stand up and take back their authority. Of course, nobody wants to do that as then they'd also have to take responsibility for their decisions. |
Something for us to think about when we are talking about income/wealth distribution in the US.
This viral video is right: We need to worry about wealth inequality Quote:
|
I've always known whites have lower unemployment rates than minorities and that asian have less employment as a whole (is it the IT thing?).
7.7 Percent | The Weekly Standard Quote:
A little surprised as the delta between blacks and hispanics. I would have thought they would be closer. I researched and found a 2005 study on types of jobs different ethnic groups do, see below pg 4. http://www2.asanet.org/centennial/ra...abormarket.pdf Hispanics do more % of "construction, extraction, maintenance" and "production, transportation, or materials moving" than blacks. Blacks do more "management, professional", "Service" and "Sales or Office". Asians are by far greater % in "managemet, professional". |
Quote:
Yeah, that's the horn that I been tooting for the last 5 years. Especially the change in that from 2008 to now. Recently there was a story that all of the income lost in 2009 had recently been regained meaning that for you and I we are now back at 0% growth in the last 4 years. However, the income growth of the top earners in the US over the last 4 years has been much, much better I couldn't find any hard numbers other than a long study that showed that income growth of the bottom 99% from 93-08 was 0.75% while the top 1% had income growth of nearly 4%, I'm sure there will be more recent studies coming out as we move further away from the Great Recession. Now I get how unfair it is for the top to pay so much in taxes, so shouldn't the solution be to get the lower earners to make more money? Given that outside of the Federal Government, money is essentially a fixed amount so if the lower earners make more that means that the top makes less. Given that drastic increase in income for the top it would seem that they have decided that it's better to make more, and pay more rather than get paid less and pay less. It's just an observation, and it's the primary reason both sides get as pissed off as they do. So what's the solution? It's easy to point fingers and call names and beat your chest and say you are right. One thing that I can't believe is that we can't all agree that this level of income disparity is bad for our country and the people in it. |
Quote:
People always think I am just being a shit disturber but really I'm not. Where do you stop? Does a Mexican or Caniadian that lives right across the border deserve not to live in poverty? Because a Texan living in Galveston has about as much connection to me as someone loving in Cancun. What about the huge disparity of our middle class to the rest of the world. Do we deserve to play on our computers and video games whe some line in extreme poverty. It's always real easy to "eat the rich" or to act like they all got there by taking advantage of their fellow Americans but what if they just worked harder? What if an African says we don't derserve to make 50K a year? Not being argumentative just want to hear to answers to these questions because it is easy to say we deserve to be equal with those above us but a little harder to say those below us need to be equal with us even if that means we have to move down to make that happen. |
Why do you want to hear answers to questions that have nothing to do with the original thought? Do you want to talk about globalization or income disparity in the US? Why try to reduce the argument back to the "eat the rich", "they just work harder" argument?
The argument isn't about the need to be equal it's about what's equal enough. You say we have to move down to make things better, and I say you already moved down you just don't know it because you are so scared someone is catching up to you that you never look up to see how far behind you really are. |
Ok so at least you're clear. It's class envy of the rich because of you don't care about those below you it has zero to do with equality.
|
I feel like if capitalism is run in its purest sense that ultimately just a handful of people will hold the wealth. As long as those at the top allow enough to filter down to those below everything is cool for everyone and people are willing to accept it. Don't let enough filter down and keep too much at the top and the people below start getting really pissed off.
I feel like capitalism needs a reset every 100 years where everyone has to return to a starting position and starts the competition all over again. |
Quote:
Because of things like credit there is not a fixed amount of wealth. Especially in a global economy, there's not a fixed amount of available income that has to be distributed between everyone. If that was the case I could certainly understand why disparity would be a problem. I think we should be more concerned with standard of living than what people have in relation to other. Inequality had replaced standard of living/poverty as the hot political thing we're all supposed to be outraged by but I think that's misguided. The rich being less successful in the a global economy and having less wealth and income wouldn't benefit the rest of us one bit. Taxing them more might, but that's a different discussion entirely. If you want for things to be more fair, you could start by depriving your kids of the advantages you give them by being a great father and a great provider. We resent people for having advantages but nobody seems willing to withhold those advantages from their own kids. You are in the global 1%, as are your kids, and that's not fair at all. Edit: If the bottom 99% tripled their standard of living tomorrow (increased access to health care, more 1-income families where one parent can stay home with the kids, more financial security generally), but it would take an economic boom that increased the standard of living of the top 1% 10 times, that would be a great thing - even if it made us less equal. |
Quote:
How would that be a great thing? Inflation would undo all of the gain plus some extra. |
Quote:
I'm just talking about standard of living, not wealth or income. Whether the very poorest have food to eat, or shelter, or healthcare, is more important than how much wealth or income they have relative to someone else. It doesn't matter to the poorest whether Bill Gates has $60 billion or only $10 billion, the world isn't somehow a better place if Bill Gates is worth less. The world isn't worse if an American businessman makes a big deal in China and suddenly has more wealth and income. (again, what we should tax him is a different argument). |
Quote:
The world being a better or worse place isn't really part of the discussion. The only way for the poor to have a better standard of living is to be closer in income to those above them. Inflation will always keep a certain percentage of people poor. The question is, are they a lot poorer than those above them, or just a little? Standard of living is based on where you are compared to the others. |
Quote:
Higher taxes on the rich accomplishes this. If you tax the rich and let the poor/middle class make gains compared to them, their standard of living goes up and the poor/middle class have more purchasing power. The poor/middle class will then spend their money and it will back into the hands of the rich who handle more of the wealth/investments. The money is always filtering to the rich, but higher taxes means more fluid cash flow and more chance for the rich to compete against each other. People don't reset to a starting position, but they do have to keep working to maintain their position. |
Quote:
Well, poor is really a relative term so ya, there will always be poor in any group, even a group of millionaires. Do those "poor" millionaires have a bad standard of living? Would it be unjust if they were "too far" removed from the billionaires wealth and income-wise? Whether the world is better/worse is exactly what I'm discussing because that's what I'm concerned with, and whether wealth inequality is inherently bad. If two millionares move into my neighbhoorhood tomorrow the wealth equality of my neighborhood will become more unequal, and I'll become more "poor" on the relative scale, but my standard of living might actually increase if the city or state tax those people enough and I get better bridges and museums and healthcare. By the same token, if we took the 100,000 richest Americans by wealth or income and plopped them into Germany or Sweden or whatever, their countries would become a lot more unequal, but they'd also get a financial boost from all that new tax revenue. |
When I am talking about poor, I think talking more poverty-line poor. Income inequality isn't inherently bad in individuals. Me having a low income compared to my neighbor isn't bad. Me being close to the poverty line because my neighbor has all the wealth is bad. A healthy economy is made up of money in circulation. Having large chunks of money tied up with the wealth collectors is not good for the economy
|
Quote:
Ideally you are correct. Though, having adequate food, shelter, and healthcare tend to require a bit more from the rich than they are giving currently in the US. But I think, if I read your argument right, is that you think we are putting the wrong thing first to accomplish the same ends. |
I don't know how the video defines "wealth" (disappointed no context provided) so there may be some fudge here but it stated top 1% has 40% of wealth and bottom 80% has 7% of wealth. This is what resonated with me ... the bottom 80%.
I don't really know how but I do like the idea of redistribution to a certain extent but suspicious of government doing it as there will be alot of waste. However, I recognize that there are only some things that government can do. |
White House stop giving tours but Kerry promised Egypt $190m to pay its bills and Congress gives out staff bonuses.
|
Quote:
Isn't that sort of what the Estate Tax is for? Resetting the race each generation. I know it's been changed to a point that it really doesn't accomplish that, but I think the general idea was there. |
Quote:
I think the whole concept of wealth inequity is too simplified, and that it can somehow be "fixed" with a magic wand. 1) Globalization and technology has broken down our barriers to connect, sell, and trade with other countries and individuals from all around the world. This allows a company and entrepreneurs to sell to billions of people now, instead of being geographically limited. The revenues and incomes increase for these individuals who are "driving" the train, but the worker's salary is still the same, because his personal situation hasn't changed (still working the same job in same location). 2) The U.S. is no longer the lone wolf, and we now compete on a global scale with countries and individuals from all over the world. We are being attacked in terms of talent, resources, financial resources, and innovation from all corners of the globe. This is impacting our ability to pull the train, so to speak, of the economic classes here in the U.S. Capital and talent is fleeting, and will go where they are best rewarded. 3) To expand on the technology point of No.1, I think we are in a new era of employment. Technology is, and will continue to, make human-filled positions more and more unnecessary. I do foresee a shift to contracting/project-based work. |
Quote:
For (2) the revised immigration law to allow the highly educated foreigners to stay in the US is a good first step. Having immigrated myself and undergone the tedious process, I'm biased. But this was such an obvious answer to help with the problem. |
Some humor.
Obama tosses barbs at joke-filled, annual Gridiron dinner | Fox News Quote:
|
I appreciate the loyalty.
Susan Rice as national security adviser? U.N. ambassador said to be front-runner. - The Washington Post Quote:
|
Quote:
That doesn't explain how the correlation between increased productivity and increased wages stopped around 1980. For the past thirty years increases in productivity have seen the wealthy pocket almost all the gains.  |
Quote:
It actually perfectly explains why the correlation stopped. The wealthy (in certain industries) are in a position now to gain wealth from literally billions more people than they used to be able to access. Meanwhile, the pizza delivery guy's job hasn't changed at all. If the very most successful Americans and corporations weren't as competitive in the global economy, they'd have less and we'd be more equal here, but the pizza delivery guy wouldn't be any better off (and our government would have a lot less tax revenue and the economy would have less consumer spending). |
Quote:
The last time we had a discussion here about class mobility people were trying to convince me that you could increase the number of people rising from the lower classes to the middle classes without the same amount of people getting knocked down from the middle classes (or higher) to the lower classes. I'm still trying to figure out how that would work. Point is, everybody likes the idea of people rising up (relative to others, of course), but not as many people are comfortable (or willing to acknowledge the necessity of) people in the middle and upper middle class getting knocked down as a necessary part of that. |
Quote:
But the delivery guy's job didn't change from 1930 to 1970, but his wages went up as productivity went up. The issue is that now as productivity rises the gains aren't as shared as they were for the thirty years after WW2. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.