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.
You cannot have it both ways, saying "...the evidence shows..." then not back that up. A "debate" is not an exercise as to who can make up the best story.
There is nothing to debate unless it is based in fact, even for "minute considerations", whatever that means. Just because one says it is so, does not make it so, if one cannot articulate how and on what basis to measure "bad" (however that is defined).
It is not that people who disagree (with you, presumably) have a "defective heart". That is just plain wrong. To say that disagreements "stem from the difference in heart" looks and smells like an ad hominum. No. Disagreements stem from whether or not another party has their facts correct, have their causal relationships correct, and have their prescriptive responses correct, etc. There is plenty for honest people to disagree about in good faith in these areas than to make it about the character of the people one is debating with.
What kind of additional FACTS would a person need to substantiate the claim that our imbalance in American politics, economics, education, labor laws that serve workers, vs those that serve the corporate class, and the claim that we have too many instances of a concerted effort to keep this imbalance going? Is this NOT the truth as you know it, are you claiming that poverty, now termed as income inequality, is not pervasive in America? What do you want me to produce that could ever possibly cause you to see things in the same manner as me? Do you want stats from the Dept of Labor? Or the conclusions in their complete form from university studies on the subject?
How about the volumes of material that absolutely agree with my views, would you actually bother to read them? Probably not, I don't bother with the various links offered here that connect to those right or left publications used by many to back up their claims. Please try to see our differences as part of the aggregate of American politics and not a personal argument. A debate is just that, your views vs mine, plenty of people are reading our posts and they also need to have some idea of the ways in which we think not just a barrage of linked evidence or laborious stats than can be twisted to sustain just about anything.
On having some heart: Most of those who think that poverty and it's causes are somehow not a concern of OUR government are also aware of the absolute disinterest from the corporate sector on social matters, as it should be, so who will look for solutions to our most dire social problems? These are simply questions to you to ponder in the absence of the data you say you'd need to be convinced of a problem that rightly belongs to government, that's the one big reason for government, to do what business can't or won't do.
If you were to go looking for the "evidence" you've gone on about you wouldn't lack for reading material. Try reading the tons of material out there that supports my "opinion', the informed opinion goes beyond that of simply making up the best story. I've read plenty from the likes of your views believe me, I read from left to right on most matters, and to be truthful there is some aspects of our social problems that require some heart when looking for solutions. If you need a definition of what it means to have heart, and obviously you do when you confuse my terms with that of having a "defective heart". My points are my contentions, they need no proof other than that which serves to disprove them.
It is not a legitimate function of government to even worry about such a thing. Income is an individual problem, to be solved by the individual experiencing the lack of income.
Solutions include changing jobs, retraining for a new job, just being much better at your existing job, opening a business, bringing value to others such that they want to pay you money.
The best way for government to address income inequality is to stop taking so much of our income.
Yeah right, like a burger flipper is going to have the $$$ to open a burger joint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
The tenet remains absolutely true: work hard and you will get ahead. Competence is so rare that any kind of reliability induces shock and awe. Call any professional to come into your home. Most of them just plain suck.
I had one good plumber in his 20s who was just starting out. He was reasonable, reliable, and did beautiful work. Within 2 years, I could no longer get him on the phone. He became so busy that he was virtually unreachable.
Such is the fate of anyone who is really good and does not stand for anything less than excellence.
Pride and hard work equals success, success, success. Then, now, today, tomorrow.
I don't think... in fact, I know, that the average American worker does not understand how bad he really sucks! It's like sex, or driving a car. Most people think they are pretty good. Bzzzzzzttt. Wrong!
??? I've worked with hard workers who did not get ahead so your 'tenet' does not remain absolutely true.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-28-2014 at 09:20 PM..
Reason: Merge
What kind of additional FACTS would a person need to substantiate the claim ...
How about the volumes of material that absolutely agree with my views, would you actually bother to read them? Probably not, I don't bother with the various links ...
...Try reading the tons of material out there that supports my "opinion', the informed opinion goes beyond that of simply making up the best story. ...
If it is so obvious then it should not be a problem to provide links to some kind of facts that support your suppositions. Not sure why it is so hard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
If you need a definition of what it means to have heart, and obviously you do when you confuse my terms with that of having a "defective heart".
No confusion. You implied that if someone disagrees with your view that somehow they either don't have a heart or that it must be defective...how can anyone take it otherwise? As I said before, it sure seems to approach being an ad hominem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
My points are my contentions, they need no proof other than that which serves to disprove them.
You need to prove your point in a debate, not just make claims. Otherwise, it is just unsubstantiated supposition.
Is the purpose to cause anyone who has a well reasoned explanation to spin their wheels responding to every unsubstantiated critique/claim of nebulous definition (e.g. "minute considerations", "heart")?
Maybe I'm old fashioned for my age, but I really don't understand the purpose then.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-29-2014 at 04:40 AM..
Reason: This is becoming dangerously close to bickering instead of debating.
If it is so obvious then it should not be a problem to provide links to some kind of facts that support your suppositions. Not sure why it is so hard?
No confusion. You implied that if someone disagrees with your view that somehow they either don't have a heart or that it must be defective...how can anyone take it otherwise? As I said before, it sure seems to approach being an ad hominem.
You need to prove your point in a debate, not just make claims. Otherwise, it is just unsubstantiated supposition.
Is the purpose to cause anyone who has a well reasoned explanation to spin their wheels responding to every unsubstantiated critique/claim of nebulous definition (e.g. "minute considerations", "heart")?
Maybe I'm old fashioned for my age, but I really don't understand the purpose then.
These articles like the many thousands of their kind are sometimes written by people with a different view than yours, so at days end will it really matter that the IRS, or the various labor councils, or churches, community leaders, police, social workers, or any of the multitude of people who see the problem actually write about it? I'll gamble that nothing can change your view, you have made up your mind and that seems obvious, but for the heck of it I'll lay out a sample of writings that contain much more of the type of discussion you seem to be comfortable with.
Most of the friction here isn't really about the strength of one's view over that of those who disagree, I think it touches on those things that stats and data often overlook, and that is why I think we need to look, if not us, who will, the statisticians? BTW, if you'd like more "evidence" of the growing sentiment that empathizes with those less fortunate souls at the bottom I'd strongly suggest going out there in the world and talking to these people who are usually so easily dismissed as a type of burden on the rest of us. Debates, in my view should be the stuff that makes people think, the to and fro of discourse can be instructive even when it just reiterates what most already know but still find themselves on the proverbial fence, simply hearing it from another source can jar one's mind to a more concrete perspective.
??? Before Obamacare, tens of millions of low-wage workers did not receive healthcare subsidies, and thus paid higher effective tax rates than many middle-class workers.
What? That's like saying that low-wage workers don't receive subsidies for their luxury car, and thus pay higher effective tax rates.
Your logic makes no sense at all. Paying more for something, or not getting free money, does not mean you are paying a higher tax.
What? That's like saying that low-wage workers don't receive subsidies for their luxury car, and thus pay higher effective tax rates.
Your logic makes no sense at all. Paying more for something, or not getting free money, does not mean you are paying a higher tax.
??? Employee A compensation $20K cash plus $10K (untaxed compensation) = $30K
Employee B compensation $20K cash = $20K
Employee C compensation $30K cash = $30K.
B pays the same amount of income tax as A, while A receives greater compensation than B, hence B pays a higher effective tax rate than A.
C pays more income tax than A, while enjoying compensation equal to A, hence C pays a higher effective tax rate than A. In this case, paying more for something, or not getting free money, quite explicitly does mean paying a higher tax.
Do you not understand the concept of "effective tax rate"?
Getting untaxed compensation affords a person a lower effective tax rate than someone with equal compensation which is fully taxed. It's not the compensation which lowers a person's effective tax rate; it is only preferential tax treatment that lowers a person's effective tax rate.
These articles like the many thousands of their kind are sometimes written by people with a different view than yours, so at days end will it really matter that the IRS, or the various labor councils, or churches, community leaders, police, social workers, or any of the multitude of people who see the problem actually write about it? I'll gamble that nothing can change your view, you have made up your mind and that seems obvious, but for the heck of it I'll lay out a sample of writings that contain much more of the type of discussion you seem to be comfortable with.
Not true...I am open to good argument based on facts. Changed my view about "global warming", though I'm sure the advocates for that wouldn't think so, as I far from agree with many other conclusions they draw from that.
Thanks for the links, as they represent a level of detail that one cannot articulate here in advocating their point.
I looked them over. A few comments:
1) Nobody is denying that there is income inequality, which all these links "prove".
2) The proposition that the US is "increasingly unequal" depends on the time frame one considers. The first link in particular provides a graph that clearly shows a U-shaped curve for the share of income going to the 1%, covering the early 1900s to now. (more on this later)
3) None of these addresses the change in the makeup of each side/decile of the income spread. It is incredibly misleading comparing snapshots over time and assuming that the people in the snapshots are the same people.
3) The last one talks about "economic oppression", yet you have argued that is not the point you are making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
Most of the friction here isn't really about the strength of one's view over that of those who disagree, I think it touches on those things that stats and data often overlook, and that is why I think we need to look, if not us, who will, the statisticians?
1) What seems to get "overlooked" in debates like these is just how well does our / any bureaucracy do with regards to distributing that money. I've already provided links that discuss fraud, abuse and inefficiency - in a word "waste".
Few dare question whether the problem could be resolved if we just deal with that waste rather than ask more from the folks who do pay the taxes (which it inevitably comes down to as part of the "solution").
2) There is also the tendency of the bureaucracy to have a wide aperture in their definitions. So, even they are not looking at the overlooked exceptional cases.
I cannot (quickly) find something more recent, but a study (2004) looked into these definitions provided by the Census Bureau and found some startling facts:
a) The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
b) More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
c) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
d) Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
More here...Executive Summary: Understanding Poverty in America Would be interesting to find out how that has changed since.
These are all things that for most of my childhood we did not have, and yet seemed the norm.
Throw in the fact that since 1900 (the timeline of that U-shaped income chart):
a) Life expectancy has increase from 47 to 77 years
b) Infant mortality rates have fallen from one in ten to one in 150.
c) Average income - in real dollars - has risen from $4,748 to $32,444
Things look to be improving for many people. So either the overlooked cases are diminishing dramatically, or the target is a moving one.
3) The question at hand is should there be something done about US income inequality. That question is much broader than targeting a solution for the isolated six sigma cases that get "overlooked".
What also seems to get "overlooked" is that a lot has been done so far in the name of addressing this issue.
Please note, as it is rather significant...the upward trend in the 1% income inequality curve (in the link you provided) STARTS shortly after the beginning of the "War on Poverty" - the US' concerted effort to "do something" about this "gap". War on Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ah, but there ARE some that do (spend and tax) more to address it. However, are the people at the bottom significantly better off? Not by a long shot!
Check out the inflection point on the graphs measuring income by decile in this article. The US surpasses Sweden (one of the highest spenders) - at about the lowest decile (10% - i.e. 90% of the population is better off in the US). And, the numbers for those below that point are very tight. This is consistent across Europe. Do We Care About Income Inequality, or Absolute Well-Being? - Forbes
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
BTW, if you'd like more "evidence" of the growing sentiment that empathizes with those less fortunate souls at the bottom I'd strongly suggest going out there in the world and talking to these people who are usually so easily dismissed as a type of burden on the rest of us. Debates, in my view should be the stuff that makes people think, the to and fro of discourse can be instructive even when it just reiterates what most already know but still find themselves on the proverbial fence, simply hearing it from another source can jar one's mind to a more concrete perspective.
Does all this mean that people who question whether something should be done about income inequality also do not want to help the truly needy and unfortunate? Absolutely not!
As a debate, this is a disagreement on the nature of the problem as put forth by the OP, and what would be an appropriate and effective response to that.
In answer to the question, should something be done about income inequality, I have said emphatically "No!" and have explained in this short space the rationale for it. Links have also been provide so that, without having to take my word or opinion on it, people can read and judge for themselves the validity of the points I raise here.
I cannot (quickly) find something more recent, but a study (2004) looked into these definitions provided by the Census Bureau and found some startling facts: a) The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
b) More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
c) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
d) Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
More here...Executive Summary: Understanding Poverty in America Would be interesting to find out how that has changed since.
These are all things that for most of my childhood we did not have, and yet seemed the norm.
Throw in the fact that since 1900 (the timeline of that U-shaped income chart):
a) Life expectancy has increase from 47 to 77 years
b) Infant mortality rates have fallen from one in ten to one in 150.
c) Average income - in real dollars - has risen from $4,748 to $32,444
Things look to be improving for many people. So either the overlooked cases are diminishing dramatically, or the target is a moving one.
3) The question at hand is should there be something done about US income inequality. That question is much broader than targeting a solution for the isolated six sigma cases that get "overlooked".
What also seems to get "overlooked" is that a lot has been done so far in the name of addressing this issue.
Oh geez, here we go again. Robert Rector trots out an updated version of these stats every year or two.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average European because the much greater population densities in Europe result in small housing units. Here in America, wide open spaces, urban sprawl, and the McMansion have driven home builders to produce large houses. Builders produce homes for the middle class and not for the poor, which is why there are so few small housing units. Ultimately, as houses age, they tend to become occupied serially by people with lower incomes which means that even McMansions can be occupied by poor people.
Household size has been declining for decades; the cliche family of four with two kids and a dog is outdated and quite uncommon among the poor. Many of the poor are elderly empty-nesters and thus are likely to have more than two rooms per person.
Old clunkers are cheap enough that many poor people can afford to own one; some people might have two clunkers to be sure they can get to work, when they would prefer but can't afford to have one good reliable car.
Used items like microwave ovens and stereos are dirt cheap and often just given away when people get the newest and fanciest version. Many of the government-defined "poor" are actually lower-middle class homeowners living on low retirement incomes; these people are highly likely to have amenities such as automatic dishwashers and air conditioning. Also it's not unusual for single mothers to be classified as "poor" while enjoying a non-poor lifestyle with help from parents, a boyfriend, or a baby daddy.
You mention the huge increase in life expectancy, but the gains are hardly evenly enjoyed; the poor tend to die several years earlier than the non-poor.
I fail to see the relevance in your dad's case, did you think that MY dad was rich and loafed around all day, did you think that most of America is made up of loafers, did you think that your dad's tale comprises enough breadth and width to compete with the larger reality at hand? Do you really believe your own words with regard to your remarks about hard work, refusing the status quo, and the last one, the notion that poverty and despair is somehow instructive? If so, I'd suggest you apply right now to our prestigious universities and allow them your pearls of wisdom to be heard on our social quagmire and it's possible resolution. We've been discussing the causes of poverty in America for decades, and, here it is, so simple..
My point is, when people are coming from extremely dire situations (i.e. my dad was a survivor of the Cultural Revolution in China), they will take drastic measures to fight for a better life. It's magnitudes more dire than a kid growing up in the ghetto with parents receiving their monthly welfare checks (a bleak but still tolerable existence.) Now, if you cut off all the welfare one day, they might be naturally motivated to take these sorts of drastic actions just like my dad.
My point is, when people are coming from extremely dire situations (i.e. my dad was a survivor of the Cultural Revolution in China), they will take drastic measures to fight for a better life. It's magnitudes more dire than a kid growing up in the ghetto with parents receiving their monthly welfare checks (a bleak but still tolerable existence.) Now, if you cut off all the welfare one day, they might be naturally motivated to take these sorts of drastic actions just like my dad.
For what it's worth, the America that was here for your father was one built upon a savage relationship between labor and the ruling class of capitalist overlords like the infamous John D Rockefeller and JP Morgan, these men also believed that a government of weaklings was in their best interest and advanced that notion under the banner of "small government". Read the American history of labor and then ask yourself if China was really all that different from a US that saw bloody clashes between labor unionists and the police, military, and private armies of thugs who sought to beat them down to a subservient level.
All of the American workforce today represents a class of survivors, our labor history is seldom discussed by the latecomers from the far flung nations that still beat their citizens. I admire the guts of every person who overcame the odds against them in order to succeed, but this isn't about guts, and it isn't about any foreign born people per se, it IS about something that many foreigners should understand though, and that is that this country that you came to didn't just HAPPEN to be the place where workers had some dignity, workers here fought a bloody bitter battle over their "dire situation" in order to form unions and have a say in their political future. The constitution was there, but, WORKERS had to enforce it. Their offspring were supposed to be the recipients of any reward from the labor battles
Foreign labor looks to many like just another tactic that will be used to undermine that progress we've made, it isn't something that would be readily understood by you or others who have little knowledge of the US as a place where people were beaten and killed for their efforts to organize themselves. As for those you have dismissed as lacking in motivation, these people also have a unique history here, some are the residual labor force that has been replaced by machines, some are a third generation of the institutional poverty stricken, and some are the walking dead whose spirit was killed in our various wars of foreign hegemonic policy. Others are simply lazy.
Drastic measures: I'm sure if you were to read some comprehensive US labor history you'd read about the very drastic measures that resulted in the formation our modern labor laws and those laws that deal with the social welfare of all workers. Are we a perfect nation now? Hardly, America is and always will be a democratic work in progress, differing opinions, differing races, differing classes, all eating their slice of a shrinking American pie.
That pie has been steadily shrinking since the end of world war two, coupled with an expansion of American capital that essentially has Americanized a large portion of the world, we now are at an impasse, a socially, economically, aging nation, struggling to adjust to a bleaker future than the one promised. American youth has felt the brunt of the diminished economy, degrees in hand standing in line for too few jobs, entering their forties in a nation that told them to get some skills and then turned them away as surplus in this new worker paradigm. I don't have any easy answers, but those workers in China who weren't able to escape may just hold the key to understanding what it takes to persevere in the pursuit of a greater scale of well being.
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.
