33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly the Economy Has Tanked

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I think I'll leave it here with you. I don't think talking to people calling black people house ni##ers is a good use of my time. Have a good one.

Of course you will, but not for that reason.

You'll be back, with more classist & racist FUD, I'm sure.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
That a regulation COULD have such an effect does not mean that regulation as a whole has such an effect. It just doesn't prove what you want it to prove.
I can't prove that I exist. haha

I'm not out to "prove" anything anyway. Just shooting the shit.

Perhaps I should clarify since you seem to be arguing against a position I don't hold. I don't think all regulation is bad in fact I totally agree that there should be some regulation. Regulations such as the NYC taxi example are the sorts of laws that we should avoid. Those regulations that don't cause a significant increase to the barrier of entry aren't what I'm talking about.
Considering you do not view a direct comparison of states on the level of economic mobility present, can you describe what sort of evidence you would accept? Please be specific.
Given all of the factors that could effect this stat I'm not sure it's possible to correctly account for them. The problem is that I don't know the type of regulation these other countries are employing that could effect economic mobility.

One thing that we both probably agree on is that the US is (based on these numbers) doing a shitty job in creating opportunity. We probably just disagree on the cause.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
So because you found a graph that shows our imports of oil increased in the 70's means all those import cars, electronics and other items never happened?
Methinks you're missing his point. PART of our increased deficit came from rising oil imports, and THAT PART had nothing to do with imported goods. To the contrary, imported consumer goods indirectly reduce our consumption of oil, and imported cars of the 70s typically used much less gasoline than did the (on average) much larger and more powerful American cars.

We can blame the 1%, but that misses the point. This is US. WE elected the Congresses and Presidents who changed the rules to get us cheap consumer goods. WE chose to buy the imported goods rather than the domestically made products. Had the American consumer not purchased the cheaper imported crap, the manufacturers who off-shored the work would have lost their asses. Instead we ate it up, to the point that ofttimes now there IS no American made alternative, and when there is it is often high end only and/or very difficult to find. This is just another stage in our reversion into childhood as we seek to blame others for what we have done.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
I'm going to take that as a no. Instead of trying to use anecdotal evidence that means nothing, I'm going to show you a graph of the intergenerational economic mobility. The lower the score, the less predictive your parents' incomes are to your income.

snapshot-mobility.png.608


Now tell me this, would you characterize those countries that outperform the US on economic mobility as having less regulation than we do or more? Does that make you think any differently?

You know what. If you did that graph in the 1970's or 1980's it would be completely different for the USA. It has to do with education expanding, starting with a relatively uneducated workforce.
 

hans030390

Diamond Member
Feb 3, 2005
7,326
2
76
Like I said I don't think all regulation is created equally. Maybe those other countries are smarter about the regulation they employ.

I bet that many (most? all?) of those countries with higher economic mobility are...more like Cuba than we are. INSTA-BAD! :p
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Now....not during then70's (if that was what you meant).

Right, but it didn't happen overnight. I was young in the 70's but I was old enough to remember starting to see more and more Subarus, and electronics made in Tiawan.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
You know what. If you did that graph in the 1970's or 1980's it would be completely different for the USA. It has to do with education expanding, starting with a relatively uneducated workforce.

At that time many of the countries on that list also were expanding education starting from a relatively uneducated workforce. Additionally, basically all of those countries currently have highly educated workforces and have had them for quite awhile now, similar to the US.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
I can't prove that I exist. haha

I'm not out to "prove" anything anyway. Just shooting the shit.

Perhaps I should clarify since you seem to be arguing against a position I don't hold. I don't think all regulation is bad in fact I totally agree that there should be some regulation. Regulations such as the NYC taxi example are the sorts of laws that we should avoid. Those regulations that don't cause a significant increase to the barrier of entry aren't what I'm talking about.
Given all of the factors that could effect this stat I'm not sure it's possible to correctly account for them. The problem is that I don't know the type of regulation these other countries are employing that could effect economic mobility.

One thing that we both probably agree on is that the US is (based on these numbers) doing a shitty job in creating opportunity. We probably just disagree on the cause.

You said this:

The fact of the matter is by putting more and more regulation on business you make it much harder for the poor to get out of the lower income brackets. Governmental controls increase barrier of entry which the rich can more easily overcome.

That is a general statement on regulation, stating that as regulation increases the poor will have more trouble getting out. That does not appear to be supported by the evidence. You're saying you believe it to be this way but can't think of any evidence that could convince you otherwise. That's basically the definition of ideology over evidence. Surely you can see how that's a problem.

Your current statements seem to be more agnostic towards regulation, which is it?
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
snapshot-mobility.png.608


Now tell me this, would you characterize those countries that outperform the US on economic mobility as having less regulation than we do or more? Does that make you think any differently?

Socialism and regulation are two different things. A country like Denmark will have very high class mobility because education is dirt cheap. Even the poorest person can get become a heart surgeon. Countries like America and Slovenia lack that mobility because education is reserved for the upper class. It's near impossible to become a heart surgeon in America unless your parents are extremely wealthy and are willing to pay for education or co-sign a student loan worth a quarter of a million dollars.

Liberals and conservatives have different ideologies when it comes to helping people pay for things. Liberals tend to give out money or things equivalent to money such as every kid in the country getting free public education up to grade 12. The conservative approach often relies on tax deductions which means you get more assistance if your income is higher. People at the bottom who already pay no tax are told to get fucked. The guy making a billion dollars per year will benefit tremendously from tax deductions for things like education, health care, child care, etc.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Socialism and regulation are two different things. A country like Denmark will have very high class mobility because education is dirt cheap. Even the poorest person can get become a heart surgeon. Countries like America and Slovenia lack that mobility because education is reserved for the upper class. It's near impossible to become a heart surgeon in America unless your parents are extremely wealthy and are willing to pay for education or co-sign a student loan worth a quarter of a million dollars.

Liberals and conservatives have different ideologies when it comes to helping people pay for things. Liberals tend to give out money or things equivalent to money such as every kid in the country getting free public education up to grade 12. The conservative approach often relies on tax deductions which means you get more assistance if your income is higher. People at the bottom who already pay no tax are told to get fucked. The guy making a billion dollars per year will benefit tremendously from tax deductions for things like education, health care, child care, etc.

Yes, socialism and regulation are different things. Countries that embrace socialism to a greater extent also tend to embrace regulation to a greater extent. Additionally, government involvement to such an extent in the education industry is in effect regulation in and of itself.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Socialism and regulation are two different things. A country like Denmark will have very high class mobility because education is dirt cheap. Even the poorest person can get become a heart surgeon. Countries like America and Slovenia lack that mobility because education is reserved for the upper class. It's near impossible to become a heart surgeon in America unless your parents are extremely wealthy and are willing to pay for education or co-sign a student loan worth a quarter of a million dollars.

Liberals and conservatives have different ideologies when it comes to helping people pay for things. Liberals tend to give out money or things equivalent to money such as every kid in the country getting free public education up to grade 12. The conservative approach often relies on tax deductions which means you get more assistance if your income is higher. People at the bottom who already pay no tax are told to get fucked. The guy making a billion dollars per year will benefit tremendously from tax deductions for things like education, health care, child care, etc.
That's true in general, but someone making a billion dollars per year (which is actually no one) doesn't care about tax deductions for things like education, health care, and child care. I think though that you forget how many benefits are available to low income people. One can easily grow up in the ghetto and become a heart surgeon in America if you look only at financing school; the real problem is that if one grows up in the ghetto, one is vanishingly unlikely to grow up in a school system which allows one the ability to academically compete for such spots even with 100% financing. It's not cheap secondary education so much as good primary education.

In general we can say that in America it's historically easier to become wealthier than one's parents as an entrepreneur, whereas in Europe it's easier to become wealthier than one's parents as an employee. We should also remember that economic mobility works both ways; by taking more of your wealth and spreading it out "fairly", government makes it harder for one to ensure that one's children have a better life. Whether that bothers the individual will depend largely on the individual's position on the progressive-conservative spectrum, but if one earns half what one's father did that is still economic mobility.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
While that's fine as a primary goal, it shouldn't be the only goal, or its unmitigated goal. It is perfectly reasonable to add a the constraint: without harming society. Certainly we, as individuals, are expected to live our lives that way. We can look out for #1, but not at the expense of harming others.

Well, many, if not most, of the Fortune 50 companies in America do more than rake in profits. Most have generous outreach and volunteer programs all over the country, of not their home town. Proctor and Gamble, for example, has the Tide trucks. Kroger donated more than 10% of its profits to charity last year. WalMart, the company who everyone loives to hate, gave away nearly 11% of its profits to charity last year. Dollar-wise, the other company everyone loves to hate, Goldman Sachs, gave about the same amount as WalMart.

Unfortunately people dont see that though. They just see the salaries of execs and cry "Greed! Greed!"

Even if these companies donated 90% of their profits to charity, how would that close the gap between the wealthy and the poor? Answer: it wouldnt. How would it raise the wages of the poor? Answer: it wouldnt. So what then IS the answer?
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
That's true in general, but someone making a billion dollars per year (which is actually no one) doesn't care about tax deductions for things like education, health care, and child care.
I don't know about super rich people but I know that the wealthiest people around me think about money all the time. My millionaire uncle could probably tell you within $100 accuracy how much of a deduction his son's education was. The higher up you go, the more complex and detailed the tax schemes become. Guys like Romney and his company have tax returns so complicated that most people can't grasp what him and his company actually do. It was something about buying a company then lending it money then claiming that loan as a deduction or something... and somehow this makes money. If there's a way to get a tax deduction on a $1 chocolate bar, the guy driving a Bentley probably knows about it and uses it. If you're wealthy enough to have/need an accountant, one could simply save ALL receipts for everything and hand a giant shoe box of receipts to the accountant and let him figure it out.

There is a loose correlation between mathematical intelligence (what IQ tests measure) and income, so it doesn't come as a shock when people at the bottom don't understand how taxes work and they have a hard time saving receipts for things. Even some small business owners don't fully understand taxes. When I was a kid, my friend's dad thought gasoline was free because it was deducted as a company expense. He would save receipts and give all of this stuff to an accountant. He was running his own mechanic shop, so he wasn't the most math savvy person on the block.
There's also a group of people who have a business and choose not to deduct things because taxes are a mystery and humans are afraid of things they don't understand. Podcaster Brian Redban said on Rogan's podcast that he doesn't bother with deductions anymore because he was audited one year and he didn't have receipts for his claims.

All of these factors come together to form one end result: tax deductions benefit rich and/or intelligent people far more than they benefit poor people. Part of it is how you're raised. A kid with rich parents might understand taxes by age 10 because their parents talk about it and show them things. A person raised by a ghetto retard might not have a clue how taxes work, so they won't get any benefit from tax deductions. It's all voodoo math as far as they're concerned because their parents didn't understand it and schools only give a basic overview of how taxes work. Receipts for things like cavity fillings or prescription drugs are thrown in the garbage because poor people don't automatically think about tax deductions. You can dismiss these people as retards who don't deserve help because they don't care enough to learn about taxes, but this eventually comes back to bite us.


by taking more of your wealth and spreading it out "fairly", government makes it harder for one to ensure that one's children have a better life.
How so? The parents in those socialist countries need zero effort to ensure their children have a better life. A kid in Norway could have his entire family killed and still come out with a PhD, good health, and no debt. In the US, it will take a lot of overtime or maybe a second job if your want your kids to have proper medical care and graduate university with zero debt.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't know about super rich people but I know that the wealthiest people around me think about money all the time. My millionaire uncle could probably tell you within $100 accuracy how much of a deduction his son's education was. The higher up you go, the more complex and detailed the tax schemes become. Guys like Romney and his company have tax returns so complicated that most people can't grasp what him and his company actually do. It was something about buying a company then lending it money then claiming that loan as a deduction or something... and somehow this makes money. If there's a way to get a tax deduction on a $1 chocolate bar, the guy driving a Bentley probably knows about it and uses it. If you're wealthy enough to have/need an accountant, one could simply save ALL receipts for everything and hand a giant shoe box of receipts to the accountant and let him figure it out.

There is a loose correlation between mathematical intelligence (what IQ tests measure) and income, so it doesn't come as a shock when people at the bottom don't understand how taxes work and they have a hard time saving receipts for things. Even some small business owners don't fully understand taxes. When I was a kid, my friend's dad thought gasoline was free because it was deducted as a company expense. He would save receipts and give all of this stuff to an accountant. He was running his own mechanic shop, so he wasn't the most math savvy person on the block.
There's also a group of people who have a business and choose not to deduct things because taxes are a mystery and humans are afraid of things they don't understand. Podcaster Brian Redban said on Rogan's podcast that he doesn't bother with deductions anymore because he was audited one year and he didn't have receipts for his claims.

All of these factors come together to form one end result: tax deductions benefit rich and/or intelligent people far more than they benefit poor people. Part of it is how you're raised. A kid with rich parents might understand taxes by age 10 because their parents talk about it and show them things. A person raised by a ghetto retard might not have a clue how taxes work, so they won't get any benefit from tax deductions. It's all voodoo math as far as they're concerned because their parents didn't understand it and schools only give a basic overview of how taxes work. Receipts for things like cavity fillings or prescription drugs are thrown in the garbage because poor people don't automatically think about tax deductions. You can dismiss these people as retards who don't deserve help because they don't care enough to learn about taxes, but this eventually comes back to bite us.

How so? The parents in those socialist countries need zero effort to ensure their children have a better life. A kid in Norway could have his entire family killed and still come out with a PhD, good health, and no debt. In the US, it will take a lot of overtime or maybe a second job if your want your kids to have proper medical care and graduate university with zero debt.
I don't think it's just sophistication. I don't itemize because the only way I could exceed the standard deduction would be to lie. After one's house is paid off, there just aren't that many deductions available.

As far as your kid in Norway, why would that guarantee him a better life than that of his father? It's merely offering him the same chances his father received. If his father is successful, Norway takes that extra wealth he generates and spreads it out to everyone else, putting his kid back on square 1 regardless of whether the father dies early or works his butt off. As far as health care and education, anyway.

EDIT: As far as graduating with no debt, there are no free rides. In America, the student has to pay back any loans he took, which rewards those who earned marketable degrees and punishes those with unmarketable or no degrees. In Norway, he'll be paying for his education and that of others for the rest of his life via high taxes.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Well, many, if not most, of the Fortune 50 companies in America do more than rake in profits. Most have generous outreach and volunteer programs all over the country, of not their home town. Proctor and Gamble, for example, has the Tide trucks. Kroger donated more than 10% of its profits to charity last year. WalMart, the company who everyone loives to hate, gave away nearly 11% of its profits to charity last year. Dollar-wise, the other company everyone loves to hate, Goldman Sachs, gave about the same amount as WalMart.

Unfortunately people dont see that though. They just see the salaries of execs and cry "Greed! Greed!"

Even if these companies donated 90% of their profits to charity, how would that close the gap between the wealthy and the poor? Answer: it wouldnt. How would it raise the wages of the poor? Answer: it wouldnt. So what then IS the answer?
You are conflating two different things. A company can be actively philanthropic while still also harming society. For example, a company that dumps poisons into the environment is harming society, regardless of how much it gives to charity. Similarly, it's great that Koch Industries helps fund PBS, but that doesn't negate the harm it does to society by corrupting our government. It's great that Wal-Mart gives to charity, but it also burdens society by paying its employees sub-poverty wages, putting so may of them on the public dole. The net result is that it's effectively tax payers who are paying Wal-Mart's "generous" charitable contributions.

That brings me back to my point. You asked what a company's primary goal is, or perhaps should be. My answer is providing a reasonable return on investment to shareholders without causing harm to society. Capitalism is a great system, but it needs a referee that's empowered to call fouls and other poor behaviors. That is supposed to be the role of government, to ensure there is a healthy balance between the interests of the capitalists and society.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
I don't have much time to post so this might be vague.

EDIT: As far as graduating with no debt, there are no free rides. In America, the student has to pay back any loans he took, which rewards those who earned marketable degrees and punishes those with unmarketable or no degrees. In Norway, he'll be paying for his education and that of others for the rest of his life via high taxes.
For most people, this simply isn't true. Being a middle class American is far more expensive than being middle class in other countries when things like education and medical insurance are factored in. Norway is not the best example because that's a country with lots of oil and it screws up the comparison. In a previous thread, I compared USA and France. The income tax in France is not much different than US income tax.

It's hard to know what number to use to define an "average" American since the numbers are all over the place. Wiki's page on personal income in the US says the average for all people older than 18 is $24,062. That sounds about right if you have a house with 2 adults. $50,000 per year for a family? Maybe $60,000? We can go with $60,000. The average family has 2 kids. 60k would be about 45,000 euros. In France, the top income tax bracket at that income level would be 14%. wiki. In the US the top tax bracket would be 15%. wiki. Now what other differences are there between the French and American families with 2 kids and the same income?
The American family would be paying as much as $10,000 for medical insurance if you wanted really good insurance that covers everything.
The French family pays 0 for medical that covers everything.
The American family would pay about $80,000 to send both kids to state universities. The French family pays almost 0.

Only the top 1-10% of people would do better in the US. The other 90% of people would be better off in France.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't have much time to post so this might be vague.


For most people, this simply isn't true. Being a middle class American is far more expensive than being middle class in other countries when things like education and medical insurance are factored in. Norway is not the best example because that's a country with lots of oil and it screws up the comparison. In a previous thread, I compared USA and France. The income tax in France is not much different than US income tax.

It's hard to know what number to use to define an "average" American since the numbers are all over the place. Wiki's page on personal income in the US says the average for all people older than 18 is $24,062. That sounds about right if you have a house with 2 adults. $50,000 per year for a family? Maybe $60,000? We can go with $60,000. The average family has 2 kids. 60k would be about 45,000 euros. In France, the top income tax bracket at that income level would be 14%. wiki. In the US the top tax bracket would be 15%. wiki. Now what other differences are there between the French and American families with 2 kids and the same income?
The American family would be paying as much as $10,000 for medical insurance if you wanted really good insurance that covers everything.
The French family pays 0 for medical that covers everything.
The American family would pay about $80,000 to send both kids to state universities. The French family pays almost 0.

Only the top 1-10% of people would do better in the US. The other 90% of people would be better off in France.
It's not quite that simple as France has a VAT tax too, so everything costs more.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Proctor and Gamble, for example, has the Tide trucks. Kroger donated more than 10% of its profits to charity last year. WalMart, the company who everyone loives to hate, gave away nearly 11% of its profits to charity last year. Dollar-wise, the other company everyone loves to hate, Goldman Sachs, gave about the same amount as WalMart.

Aren't those donations tax deductible?

In reality, it is the tax payers who are paying for those donations.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Hmm, when I read the link in the OP, I understood that the article was poking fun at the claims of "turning the economy around" made by the current leadership. That to make such claims is stupid. Not to place blame on the current administration for all the problems of the current economy. In fact, the article states to blame a president instead of bigger fish with more impact, like the federal reserve, on the current economy changes is stupid.

I don't get the hate from all the people defending obama on this. The original article is not attacking Obama's economic effect, just his claims that he is actually doing something.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Aren't those donations tax deductible?

In reality, it is the tax payers who are paying for those donations.

Not always. And tax deductions for charity by corporations is limited.

I dont understand what you mean about being paid by tax payers.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
^ I think Texashiker means that because those companies' donations reduce their taxable income, that the tax revenue that would have gone to the gov't had the donations not be deducted, are now instead going directly into the pockets of said companies. Which is an odd argument to make given the ideological leanings of said poster.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
You said this:



That is a general statement on regulation, stating that as regulation increases the poor will have more trouble getting out. That does not appear to be supported by the evidence. You're saying you believe it to be this way but can't think of any evidence that could convince you otherwise. That's basically the definition of ideology over evidence. Surely you can see how that's a problem.

Your current statements seem to be more agnostic towards regulation, which is it?
I've clarified what I meant, why isn't that good enough? The NYC taxi permit system is an example of the regulations that keep deep pockets and connected people in the game while leaving the little guy on the side lines. So it isn't just the quantity of regulations that I was really talking about. OK?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
^ I think Texashiker means that because those companies' donations reduce their taxable income, that the tax revenue that would have gone to the gov't had the donations not be deducted, are now instead going directly into the pockets of said companies. Which is an odd argument to make given the ideological leanings of said poster.

That sure isn't the way he makes it sound. If said company donates $100,000 to a charity and claims it as a write off, that is NOT $100,000 in lost tax revenue. Worst case it is $35,000 given the tax rate at the time and given what the company would have done with the funds to begin with.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I've clarified what I meant, why isn't that good enough? The NYC taxi permit system is an example of the regulations that keep deep pockets and connected people in the game while leaving the little guy on the side lines. So it isn't just the quantity of regulations that I was really talking about. OK?

I suppose that now near non-existent financial regs kept the little guy on the sidelines, along with those pertaining to transportation safety, pure food, drugs & cosmetics, medical treatments, truth in lending & environmental regs, too. Mileage standards for automobiles won't reduce oil consumption & dependence on foreign sources, either.

And I'm sure that capitalists would bring back jobs from China if they could just pay Chinese wages in this country.