The numbers don't lie

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Now more than ever, it's time to change the representative model of the U.S. Senate to something more useful. ;)

What if senators represented people by income or race, not by state?

What if the 100-member Senate were designed to mirror the overall U.S. population -- and were based on statistics rather than state lines?

Imagine a chamber in which senators were elected by different income brackets -- with two senators representing the poorest 2 percent of the electorate, two senators representing the richest 2 percent and so on.

Based on Census Bureau data, five senators would represent Americans earning between $100,000 and $1 million individually per year, with a single senator working on behalf of the millionaires (technically, it would be two-tenths of a senator).

Eight senators would represent Americans with no income. Sixteen would represent Americans who make less than $10,000 a year, an amount well below the federal poverty line for families.

The bulk of the senators would work on behalf of the middle class, with 34 representing Americans making $30,000 to $80,000 per year.

Imagine trying to convince someone -- Michael Bloomberg, perhaps? -- to be the lonely senator representing the richest percentile. And what if the senators were apportioned according to jobs figures? This year, the unemployed would have gained two seats. Think of the deals that would be made to attract that bloc!
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Numbers don't lie, but Mother Jones has a habit of.

Take a look at my thread about this from a little while back for better context:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2133331&highlight=wealth+distribution

OH MY GOD, i just clicked your link, THAT thread? Are you fucking kidding me??!?! That's the thread where you think buying a house increases your wealth (by the value of the house), but you don't even fucking include the associated mortgage in your calculations. You're probably the biggest liar when it comes to numbers.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
OH MY GOD, i just clicked your link, THAT thread? Are you fucking kidding me??!?! That's the thread where you think buying a house increases your wealth (by the value of the house), but you don't even fucking include the associated mortgage in your calculations. You're probably the biggest liar when it comes to numbers.

Yep, the same thread where you couldn't understand the simple concept I was presenting, after correcting my error, of the transfer of wealth via interest.

For all your supposed accounting knowledge, it still befuddles me that you can't understand the present/future value of money.

Yep, that thread.

But hey... keep stalking me.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Yep, the same thread where you couldn't understand the simple concept I was presenting, after correcting my error, of the transfer of wealth via interest.

For all your supposed accounting knowledge, it still befuddles me that you can't understand the present/future value of money.

Yep, that thread.

But hey... keep stalking me.

Dude, your whole assumption in that thread was wrong and you were corrected multiple times by multiple people. The whole basis of your thread was bullshit.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Dude, your whole assumption in that thread was wrong and you were corrected multiple times by multiple people. The whole basis of your thread was bullshit.

I was corrected on my original premise, and then you decided to keep arguing that the interest on a mortgage is negligible.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
I was corrected on my original premise, and then you decided to keep arguing that the interest on a mortgage is negligible.

Well, for one thing, that original correction pretty much wiped out your premise by itself. Also, your AVERAGE American doesn't stay in their houses for their entire lives so the full 30 year mortgage doesn't really apply.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81

So who do you blame? Do you blame the rich for making money or do you blame everyone else for continually buying things like new cars, iPhones, computers, and all kinds of things. Ever notice how the richest people are heads of companies that make things you don't have to have to survive?

Anyone in the technology sector, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Harlan Ellison, the list goes on. Guys like this represent the top teir of the income bracket, and if you look at it, most of them started from the very bottom.

I'm not rich by any means, I make above the national average, and I can't go out and buy whatever I want, but I understand that the rich are rich because they worked to get there.

The poor are poor because they are not willing to work or better themselves. I've seen single parents, manage to work a fulltime job for minimum wage, go to school and make their lives better. It's all about motivation, and sadly in this nation there is less of it. Why work your ass off and succeed on your own when you can have someone else do it for you. That's the mentality of anyone that thinks taxing the rich more to pay for the poor is the answer.
You can't make the bottom rungs of society better by bringing down the top rungs. You have to make the bottom rungs climb up the ladder.

I think more people would be for wealth redistribution if it wasn't just taking money from the rich to give to the poor so they can go out and buy Air Force One's, which ironically gives mony back to the rich.
Instead of giving the poor, wealthfare checks and food stamps for nothing. Make them attend job training. Make them attend social welfare and responsibility classes. Make them do something that will embetter themselves, instead of giving them a reason to sit on their ass and do nothing.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Well, for one thing, that original correction pretty much wiped out your premise by itself. Also, your AVERAGE American doesn't stay in their houses for their entire lives so the full 30 year mortgage doesn't really apply.

Which is part of the problem. It's turned into keeping up with the Benjamins. The majority of Americans care more about what other percieve of them based on material things. Big house, luxury cars, iPhones ect.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
This coming from the guy who misrepresent's Romer's tax study in his sig? Oh that's rich.
Are you going to go off-topic and bring this up in every thread he posts in? Personal problem here? Seriously...what is it with you?
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
So who do you blame? Do you blame the rich for making money or do you blame everyone else for continually buying things like new cars, iPhones, computers, and all kinds of things. Ever notice how the richest people are heads of companies that make things you don't have to have to survive?

Anyone in the technology sector, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Harlan Ellison, the list goes on. Guys like this represent the top teir of the income bracket, and if you look at it, most of them started from the very bottom.

I'm not rich by any means, I make above the national average, and I can't go out and buy whatever I want, but I understand that the rich are rich because they worked to get there.

The poor are poor because they are not willing to work or better themselves. I've seen single parents, manage to work a fulltime job for minimum wage, go to school and make their lives better. It's all about motivation, and sadly in this nation there is less of it. Why work your ass off and succeed on your own when you can have someone else do it for you. That's the mentality of anyone that thinks taxing the rich more to pay for the poor is the answer.
You can't make the bottom rungs of society better by bringing down the top rungs. You have to make the bottom rungs climb up the ladder.

I think more people would be for wealth redistribution if it wasn't just taking money from the rich to give to the poor so they can go out and buy Air Force One's, which ironically gives mony back to the rich.
Instead of giving the poor, wealthfare checks and food stamps for nothing. Make them attend job training. Make them attend social welfare and responsibility classes. Make them do something that will embetter themselves, instead of giving them a reason to sit on their ass and do nothing.

The engineer with a masters degree whose job was eliminated and shipped off somewhere else because he was 'too expensive'. Was he lazy/unmotivated? The more white collar jobs get eliminated, the more competition there is for those few remaining jobs and wages will be brought down and there will be mass unemployment. This isn't just affecting your 'lazy poor people'.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Are you going to go off-topic and bring this up in every thread he posts in? Personal problem? Seriously...what is it with you?

Well, in this thread, he's accusing motherjones of lying (without any backup), yet he has a boldface lie in his sig. I find it highly ironic.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Well, in this thread, he's accusing motherjones of lying (without any backup), yet he has a boldface lie in his sig. I find it highly ironic.
There's a vaild argument to be made on the trends and inequities of wealth distribution but I wouldn't give much credibility to this particular site. It's pretty damn clear that this site really, really sucks.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
There's a vaild argument here on the trends and inequities of wealth distribution but I wouldn't give much credibility to this particular site. It's pretty damn clear that this site really, really sucks.

Why don't you guys tell us WHY instead of just throwing that out there? Like, what specifically did they get wrong?

I mean, what i'm saying is, you guys are working backwards here, first coming to a conclusion and then afterwards MAYBE trying to find evidence that contradicts what motherjones is saying.
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Why don't you guys tell us WHY instead of just throwing that out there? Like, what specifically did they get wrong?
I'm not saying they got anything wrong per se. I'm saying that they have a glaringly obvious agenda that severely diminishes their credibilty. Surely you can see this.

My take on this article is that they're advocating that wealth inequities are solely related to tax rates and the rich should be taxed more to compensate....simple as that. It makes no attempt to analyze other potential causes of income inequities and other possible solutions. This kind of shit is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Come on...I know you're an incredibly smart guy....but please do yourself a favor and stop drinking the koolaid.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Reality doesn't lie either. Worthless piece of shits stay worthless, producers make money.