Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... when the entire argument for income inequality is that the wealthy have more money because they "make" more... most of their income is not from working 9-5, the argument is based incorrectly from the start
Did someone say that these 'wealthy' people are working 9-5 jobs?
In a time when hundreds of thousands of people owned small hamburger joints, Ray Kroc came along with the idea to franchise the restaurants across the nation and around the globe. The guy across the street selling Schwartz burgers may have been working longer hours, but he went bankrupt long ago while McD showed a Net income of US$4.686 billion in 2016.
Tim Paterson wrote MS-DOS which he sold for $75k. Bill Gates bought it and in 2017 they posted a Net income of US$21.20 billion.
I'm proving the point, but maybe it was too subtle.
You stated that the cause of our high income disparity was kids born out of wedlock. The US has the highest income disparity of all developed countries, yet it ranks low for kids born out of wedlock. Countries with very low disparity, like Iceland, Norway, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. have more births out of wedlock than the US. All of them have many more births out of wedlock than in the 60s, but it hasn't resulted in higher disparity.
So obviously, your assertion is false.
You can't compare a few small European welfare states to a large nation of over 300M. Apples to oranges. The cultures and attitudes of the people are too different. The fact remains that people who get at least a high school education, work full time, marry, then have kids...in that order, are much less likely to be poor than those who don't do things in that order. Even the liberal think tanks like the Brookings Institution have said as much.
In later research, Ron Haskins and I learned that if individuals do just three things — finish high school, work full time and marry before they have children — their chances of being poor drop from 15 percent to 2 percent. Mitt Romney has cited this research on the campaign trail, but these issues transcend presidential politics. Stronger public support for single-parent families — such as subsidies or tax credits for child care, and the earned-income tax credit — is needed, but no government program is likely to reduce child poverty as much as bringing back marriage as the preferable way of raising children
You can't compare a few small European welfare states to a large nation of over 300M. Apples to oranges. The cultures and attitudes of the people are too different.
I've noticed that this completely indefensible excuse gets paraded around a lot... anytime the US compares unfavorably to pretty much any country in the world! Because you know, the US is by far the largest developed country. So our issues can always be blamed on "bigness". No need justify *why* the larger population size should be a problem, just state that it is, and walk away...
Regarding "culture and attitudes", do you mean the bigoted, divisive, antagonistic attitude in the US? Ya, that gets in the way of a lot of things. I suppose we should pander and cater to it, rather than maybe... do something else?
Quote:
In later research, Ron Haskins and I learned that if individuals do just three things — finish high school, work full time and marry before they have children — their chances of being poor drop from 15 percent to 2 percent.
In other breaking news, the incidence of poverty drops to zero if a person does just one thing. Makes lots of money!
You stated that the cause of our high income disparity was kids born out of wedlock. The US has the highest income disparity of all developed countries, yet it ranks low for kids born out of wedlock. Countries with very low disparity, like Iceland, Norway, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. have more births out of wedlock than the US. All of them have many more births out of wedlock than in the 60s, but it hasn't resulted in higher disparity.
The miscommunication between you and Mystical Tiger, is indeed on a subject of culture. The US remains a socially conservative country, in subtle ways. Crucially, in most of the rest of the developed-world, and especially in Northern Europe, there is no stigma amongst well-educated upper-middle-class people choosing to live together without marriage. They get fine educations, couple-up in their late 20s or early 30s, have one or two children (at age 30 or 35 or whatnot), but choose not to marry. They stay together as a committed monogamous couple, buying a house together, raising a family together... they just don't marry. In the US, this is rare... here, we either have traditional marriage (with possibly nearly as traditional divorce), or blithe indifference to family, with instability and so forth.
It's not marriage that's the magic potion, but family stability. Marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient for such stability. It's just that elsewhere in the world, it is common to find such stability even amongst couples who don't marry.
To give an analogy, it has been shown that children who grow up in households with lots of books, tend to become better educated themselves, and to do better in life. Well, a scheme of sending around a van to deliver free books to houses with a paucity of books, won't be effective. What is necessary is to transform the parental mindset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
...A strong argument can be made that our country and values place more value on individual gain then total societal benefit, or what is better for me outweighs the greater good for everyone.
Because we are such a strongly capitalistic society, a sizable portion of people have been told and taught by those making the money and in turn those making the laws, that making as much money as we can, while keeping as much as we can is in everyone’s best interest. This mindset has permeated and become entrenched in many minds. ...
You’re correct. But the irony is, that so many people who believe this ethos, either from personal conviction or because they’ve been seduced by propaganda, have no realistic hope of ever attaining the sort of wealth, that’s lauded in prototypical examples of success. Meanwhile, under similar irony, so many of those who clamor for a more communitarian ethos, have themselves already obtained a fine education, a comfortable life and a large portfolio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
... when do we stop blaming the majority of people and start looking at the system?
Probably never - for the very reasons that you articulated. Given the ethos and mindset of American life, no top-down solution, no public-sector solution, no "socialist" solution will ever work, or be given the least bit of a chance to work. It can't be done, because it would literally be Unamerican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
...Tim Paterson wrote MS-DOS which he sold for $75k. Bill Gates bought it and in 2017 they posted a Net income of US$21.20 billion.
Did Bill Gates work harder than Tim Paterson?
But this begs the question: by what standard of justice, ought we to reward Bill Gates, but ignore Tim Paterson (or other persons, on whose work Paterson based his code)? In other words, "the system" rewards those who facilitate the transfer and promulgation of things, and not those who originate the core idea. Is this wrong? Hard to say....
Probably never - for the very reasons that you articulated. Given the ethos and mindset of American life, no top-down solution, no public-sector solution, no "socialist" solution will ever work, or be given the least bit of a chance to work. It can't be done, because it would literally be Unamerican.
I think you are old enough to remember a time when the idea of "we are all in this together" was celebrated rather than ridiculed. Our income/wealth/social disparity was relatively small back then. The divisive free-for-all of propaganda and lies was considered fringe nonsense. What it meant to be an American then is very different than now.
Quote:
But this begs the question: by what standard of justice, ought we to reward Bill Gates, but ignore Tim Paterson (or other persons, on whose work Paterson based his code)?
This is normal and just fine, IMO. Paterson sold it for what he thought it was worth (not a lot). Plenty of engineers have invented things and they didn't get squat for them. Gates made it valuable, not Paterson.
Gates is actually a good case study. MS was successful because Gates was a clever and ruthless businessman, who would bend the law as much as he thought he could. He pillaged and bankrupted a lot of companies by reverse engineering code, or making competing software products incompatible with Windows, or undercutting the price until the competitor went out of business. Remember the Netscape vs IE fiasco?
Tim Paterson wrote MS-DOS which he sold for $75k. Bill Gates bought it and in 2017 they posted a Net income of US$21.20 billion.
Did Bill Gates work harder than Tim Paterson?
are you saying MS-DOS was worth more than $75k at the time?
maybe if he had a magic globe that looked into the future, he could have made a microsoft company instead
everyone likes to bring up the long island story of how the indians sold it... guess what, if they didn't sell it, they would have been killed for it and gotten nothing for it
Did someone say that these 'wealthy' people are working 9-5 jobs?
In a time when hundreds of thousands of people owned small hamburger joints, Ray Kroc came along with the idea to franchise the restaurants across the nation and around the globe. The guy across the street selling Schwartz burgers may have been working longer hours, but he went bankrupt long ago while McD showed a Net income of US$4.686 billion in 2016.
Tim Paterson wrote MS-DOS which he sold for $75k. Bill Gates bought it and in 2017 they posted a Net income of US$21.20 billion.
Did Bill Gates work harder than Tim Paterson?
people mistakenly only talk about working "hard"
all hours aren't equal for starters. it's not just raw time that matters.
hard work is important so long as it's smart and efficient work.
I've noticed that this completely indefensible excuse gets paraded around a lot... anytime the US compares unfavorably to pretty much any country in the world! Because you know, the US is by far the largest developed country. So our issues can always be blamed on "bigness". No need justify *why* the larger population size should be a problem, just state that it is, and walk away...
And welfare state lovers always think if we just jack up taxes and start a bunch of welfare programs that we can turn America into Sweden. They turn a blind eye to the corruption and ineptitude of our own government or naively believe that if we just vote in someone like Bernie Sanders all will be well. It won't. But I'm sure you'll not be convinced of that no matter what I say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
Regarding "culture and attitudes", do you mean the bigoted, divisive, antagonistic attitude in the US? Ya, that gets in the way of a lot of things. I suppose we should pander and cater to it, rather than maybe... do something else?
Of course, whenever you can't think of something better to say, just start the name calling "racist, bigoted", etc. Actually, I meant something like the book The Triple Package by Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld. But I'm sure you'll write off the authors as racist or.... fill in the blank here ______.
The miscommunication between you and Mystical Tiger, is indeed on a subject of culture. The US remains a socially conservative country, in subtle ways. Crucially, in most of the rest of the developed-world, and especially in Northern Europe, there is no stigma amongst well-educated upper-middle-class people choosing to live together without marriage. They get fine educations, couple-up in their late 20s or early 30s, have one or two children (at age 30 or 35 or whatnot), but choose not to marry. They stay together as a committed monogamous couple, buying a house together, raising a family together... they just don't marry. In the US, this is rare... here, we either have traditional marriage (with possibly nearly as traditional divorce), or blithe indifference to family, with instability and so forth.
It's not marriage that's the magic potion, but family stability. Marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient for such stability. It's just that elsewhere in the world, it is common to find such stability even amongst couples who don't marry.
To give an analogy, it has been shown that children who grow up in households with lots of books, tend to become better educated themselves, and to do better in life. Well, a scheme of sending around a van to deliver free books to houses with a paucity of books, won't be effective. What is necessary is to transform the parental mindset.
Yes, that's what I was getting at. People who have children outside marriage in the U.S. typically don't give their kids a stable home life, economically or otherwise. People who do marry before having children typically do--or at least do so more often than those who don't. Our culture IS different than Scandinavia's and I get tired of those who think we can just magically transform America into Sweden. Not only is it unrealistic and impractical, in many aspects I wouldn't find it desirable. I think Sweden is now finding out how difficult it is to integrate people from different cultures now that they have so many new refugees.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
