The Rise of the Bottom Fifth

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If we are not dividing pie then why not pay the poor the same amount of money as the rich make? Give everybody a million a year. Tax revenues will go up as well as most people's standard of living. It will be great.
:confused:

Like I said, Moonie, it's not static. If you gave everybody a million a year, then a million would stop being a lot of money.
Then every year you increase it to where it is a lot of money. Problem solved.
Welp, someone's never taken a course in economics in their lifetime. Nor ever read about the First World War, it seems. Colour me unsurprised.

Look, yllus, I was making a point in response to a post by Vic I assumed he would understand, but which, like with ElFenix, Genx87, you and God knows how many others, went right over your heads.

The thread opened with the notion that the poor had experienced an earnings growth over that last number of years with the assumption that this is a good thing. Then it was pointed out that the numbers don't mean much without tanking inflation into consideration and also that people were also in fact working longer hours as well as the fact that the share of the pie going to the poor had dropped.

Vic pointed out that the pie is not static so it doesn't matter how much the rich get, with the assumption, I think, on his part that more for the poor is better even if there is also much much more now for the rich.

This argument strikes me as totally false and to indicate that fact I suggested that all that was needed to fix it is to pay the poor more so they will be able to have more to spend.

In other words I suggested we create a race in which the poor start earning what the rich do to even out the economy. Hehe, and I got hit with the fact that this would cause inflation. But inflation for who? For anybody with money, of course.

But what about this fabulous expanding pie? What is the meaning of the rich going from 50 to 70 percent of the wealth. What happens at 90 or 99% if the trend continues. I say the result is that one person will eventually own everything and all the rest will have nothing at all. What kind of inflation do you have then. In that world the only thing of value will be bread.

An expanding pie is meaningless if the number of people who are poor continues to remain the same. Even if their income expands prices will rise faster than their wages because the rich will have vastly more money to spend on goods. Their increasing wealth will create inflation, will it not. An oversupply of money chasing limited goods?

Vic didn't think giving the poor more money would work but had no problem with the rich earning more. I thought that rather strange so I suggested as a cure what he, I thought, was also suggesting. :) Hehe, that created quite an uproar.

But you are right, I don't know much about economics or any thing else for that matter. I just feel my way.

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If we are not dividing pie then why not pay the poor the same amount of money as the rich make? Give everybody a million a year. Tax revenues will go up as well as most people's standard of living. It will be great.
:confused:

Like I said, Moonie, it's not static. If you gave everybody a million a year, then a million would stop being a lot of money.
Then every year you increase it to where it is a lot of money. Problem solved.
Welp, someone's never taken a course in economics in their lifetime. Nor ever read about the First World War, it seems. Colour me unsurprised.

Look, yllus, I was making a point in response to a post by Vic I assumed he would understand, but which, like with ElFenix, Genx87, you and God knows how many others, went right over your heads.

The thread opened with the notion that the poor had experienced an earnings growth over that last number of years with the assumption that this is a good thing. Then it was pointed out that the numbers don't mean much without tanking inflation into consideration and also that people were also in fact working longer hours as well as the fact that the share of the pie going to the poor had dropped.

Vic pointed out that the pie is not static so it doesn't matter how much the rich get, with the assumption, I think, on his part that more for the poor is better even if there is also much much more now for the rich.

This argument strikes me as totally false and to indicate that fact I suggested that all that was needed to fix it is to pay the poor more so they will be able to have more to spend.

In other words I suggested we create a race in which the poor start earning what the rich do to even out the economy. Hehe, and I got hit with the fact that this would cause inflation. But inflation for who? For anybody with money, of course.

But what about this fabulous expanding pie? What is the meaning of the rich going from 50 to 70 percent of the wealth. What happens at 90 or 99% if the trend continues. I say the result is that one person will eventually own everything and all the rest will have nothing at all. What kind of inflation do you have then. In that world the only thing of value will be bread.

An expanding pie is meaningless if the number of people who are poor continues to remain the same. Even if their income expands prices will rise faster than their wages because the rich will have vastly more money to spend on goods. Their increasing wealth will create inflation, will it not. An oversupply of money chasing limited goods?

Vic didn't think giving the poor more money would work but had no problem with the rich earning more. I thought that rather strange so I suggested as a cure what he, I thought, was also suggesting. :) Hehe, that created quite an uproar.

But you are right, I don't know much about economics or any thing else for that matter. I just feel my way.

Believe it or not Moon there are ponts I agree with; however, there is one glaring mistake in your statement about giving more to the poor to have more to spend...they will still be poor. I saw a special on HBO last year about some guy who was bouncing between living with family and on the street. He was given 1 million cash in exchange for letting HBO follow his moves and to keep tabs on what he spent. The bottom line is...it was gone in less than a year. He didnt even do anything spectacular. All this proves my point when I say the poor are that way not because our society keeps them down, or that people dont care, or that low wage jobs hold them back. They are poor, and will stay poor because they are too naive or too lazy to manage their money and get out of their predicament THEY THEMSELVES create. It's no one's fault but their own.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Although that article is crap and its already been pointed out, i feel the need to beat a dead horse here.

The article specifically says the bottom 5ths wages increased from working more.

Their wages have not really increased, they are working more to get less.

All you have to do is look around, kids living with their parents until they are 25+ because they cant afford to live on their own... People with families having both parents work 2 or even 3 jobs just to get by... Anyone who really believes the poor are better off recently are just stupid, nieve, or both.
I think you are missing the idea behind the ?working more? bit.
In the old days they just collected welfare and sat around the house.
Now they can no longer do that and instead have to go out and work to earn a living.

You noticed that between 1991 and 2005 their ?earned? income went from $6000 a year to $11,000 a year.
Also, do the math. Minimum wage is $5.15 an hour nationally; in many states it is higher.
If you are only making $5.15 an hour you only have to work 41 hours a week to make $11,000 a year.
The average clerk at Wal-Mart makes $8.50 an hour, to make $11,000 they only have to work 24 hours a week.

So if you are implying that these people are working two jobs 60 hours a week the math does not add up in your favor.

Your math doesnt calculate inflation.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Although that article is crap and its already been pointed out, i feel the need to beat a dead horse here.

The article specifically says the bottom 5ths wages increased from working more.

Their wages have not really increased, they are working more to get less.

All you have to do is look around, kids living with their parents until they are 25+ because they cant afford to live on their own... People with families having both parents work 2 or even 3 jobs just to get by... Anyone who really believes the poor are better off recently are just stupid, nieve, or both.
I think you are missing the idea behind the ?working more? bit.
In the old days they just collected welfare and sat around the house.
Now they can no longer do that and instead have to go out and work to earn a living.

You noticed that between 1991 and 2005 their ?earned? income went from $6000 a year to $11,000 a year.
Also, do the math. Minimum wage is $5.15 an hour nationally; in many states it is higher.
If you are only making $5.15 an hour you only have to work 41 hours a week to make $11,000 a year.
The average clerk at Wal-Mart makes $8.50 an hour, to make $11,000 they only have to work 24 hours a week.

So if you are implying that these people are working two jobs 60 hours a week the math does not add up in your favor.

Your math doesnt calculate inflation.

wow youre right. 3 1/2% average inflation is a killer! Well, at $10/hr a 35 cent raise will do it!

http://inflationdata.com/infla...te/AnnualInflation.asp
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If we are not dividing pie then why not pay the poor the same amount of money as the rich make? Give everybody a million a year. Tax revenues will go up as well as most people's standard of living. It will be great.
:confused:

Like I said, Moonie, it's not static. If you gave everybody a million a year, then a million would stop being a lot of money.
Then every year you increase it to where it is a lot of money. Problem solved.
Welp, someone's never taken a course in economics in their lifetime. Nor ever read about the First World War, it seems. Colour me unsurprised.

Look, yllus, I was making a point in response to a post by Vic I assumed he would understand, but which, like with ElFenix, Genx87, you and God knows how many others, went right over your heads.

The thread opened with the notion that the poor had experienced an earnings growth over that last number of years with the assumption that this is a good thing. Then it was pointed out that the numbers don't mean much without tanking inflation into consideration and also that people were also in fact working longer hours as well as the fact that the share of the pie going to the poor had dropped.

Vic pointed out that the pie is not static so it doesn't matter how much the rich get, with the assumption, I think, on his part that more for the poor is better even if there is also much much more now for the rich.

This argument strikes me as totally false and to indicate that fact I suggested that all that was needed to fix it is to pay the poor more so they will be able to have more to spend.

In other words I suggested we create a race in which the poor start earning what the rich do to even out the economy. Hehe, and I got hit with the fact that this would cause inflation. But inflation for who? For anybody with money, of course.

But what about this fabulous expanding pie? What is the meaning of the rich going from 50 to 70 percent of the wealth. What happens at 90 or 99% if the trend continues. I say the result is that one person will eventually own everything and all the rest will have nothing at all. What kind of inflation do you have then. In that world the only thing of value will be bread.

An expanding pie is meaningless if the number of people who are poor continues to remain the same. Even if their income expands prices will rise faster than their wages because the rich will have vastly more money to spend on goods. Their increasing wealth will create inflation, will it not. An oversupply of money chasing limited goods?

Vic didn't think giving the poor more money would work but had no problem with the rich earning more. I thought that rather strange so I suggested as a cure what he, I thought, was also suggesting. :) Hehe, that created quite an uproar.

But you are right, I don't know much about economics or any thing else for that matter. I just feel my way.

Believe it or not Moon there are ponts I agree with; however, there is one glaring mistake in your statement about giving more to the poor to have more to spend...they will still be poor. I saw a special on HBO last year about some guy who was bouncing between living with family and on the street. He was given 1 million cash in exchange for letting HBO follow his moves and to keep tabs on what he spent. The bottom line is...it was gone in less than a year. He didnt even do anything spectacular. All this proves my point when I say the poor are that way not because our society keeps them down, or that people dont care, or that low wage jobs hold them back. They are poor, and will stay poor because they are too naive or too lazy to manage their money and get out of their predicament THEY THEMSELVES create. It's no one's fault but their own.

I don't look at it quite so simplistically. Nor do I look at it the way Moonie tried to portray me either. The problem is that, while we are all humans beings and therefore all guaranteed the same basic rights, we are not all the same. Except for some simple basics, we all have different needs, wants, desires, and goals. Which is where Craig and Moonie's philosophies fail utterly, as they assume that we all want the same thing AND are willing to work together for all those same things. Why, according to them, it's only because of the selfish evil of an elite few and an ignorant many that they are denied from making their personal utopias into reality, and surely not because we all want different utopias. Sadly, their philosophies, because they are based on this delusion shared want, that we all do (or should) want exactly as they want, always end up the same way: in mass murder.

They need to learn to let people live their own lives. Give each person the opportunity they need and let it go. But sadly, that won't happen, and they will fight to push their utopias on others as others will fight to push their utopias on them, and war, death, pain, and humiliation will continue indefinitely. And never, NEVER will they accept their own personal role. Always it will be some evil enemy's fault. Always there will be some Satan, which they will seem themselves fighting against in some noble Hero's role, and never will they see that they created the Satan in their own minds for exactly the purpose of playing out the Hero's role for themselves.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There are many ways to more evenly spread the distribution of wealth in america, most of them don't involve confiscation of wealth. Monetary policy, healthcare, education, etc can all have their roles. At the moment, many government policies are set against the poor and middle income and in favor of those with large amounts of wealth.

eh...you're so wrong I dont even know where to start. If what you say is true, why are corporations, families, and individuals moving their money OUTSIDE of the country so quickly? Dave posted an article about this trend a few months back. Another popular tactic was denouncing citizenship in favor of a country with wealth-friendly laws. Then, just keep your residency in the USA and visit whenever you want. It was happening so frequently a law was passed to expand your tax burden 10 years should you decide to do this.

Tell me why this is happening if the tax laws are so wealthy-friendly?

its happening because tax laws are wealth friendly. A more severe non-wealth friendly action might be the confiscation of asset of people who renounce citizenship, for example.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There are many ways to more evenly spread the distribution of wealth in america, most of them don't involve confiscation of wealth. Monetary policy, healthcare, education, etc can all have their roles. At the moment, many government policies are set against the poor and middle income and in favor of those with large amounts of wealth.

eh...you're so wrong I dont even know where to start. If what you say is true, why are corporations, families, and individuals moving their money OUTSIDE of the country so quickly? Dave posted an article about this trend a few months back. Another popular tactic was denouncing citizenship in favor of a country with wealth-friendly laws. Then, just keep your residency in the USA and visit whenever you want. It was happening so frequently a law was passed to expand your tax burden 10 years should you decide to do this.

Tell me why this is happening if the tax laws are so wealthy-friendly?

its happening because tax laws are wealth friendly. A more severe non-wealth friendly action might be the confiscation of asset of people who renounce citizenship, for example.

The problem, sir, is you didnt read what I wrote. You can believe it or not, doesnt matter to me. But what I said is fact. Companies are moving their workforces out of country due to increased tax liability.

As far as confiscating assets...how would you confiscate something that doesnt lie or isnt part of American soil? Right. You cant. Put a little thought into your argument next time.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Look, yllus, I was making a point in response to a post by Vic I assumed he would understand, but which, like with ElFenix, Genx87, you and God knows how many others, went right over your heads.

The thread opened with the notion that the poor had experienced an earnings growth over that last number of years with the assumption that this is a good thing. Then it was pointed out that the numbers don't mean much without tanking inflation into consideration and also that people were also in fact working longer hours as well as the fact that the share of the pie going to the poor had dropped.

Vic pointed out that the pie is not static so it doesn't matter how much the rich get, with the assumption, I think, on his part that more for the poor is better even if there is also much much more now for the rich.

This argument strikes me as totally false and to indicate that fact I suggested that all that was needed to fix it is to pay the poor more so they will be able to have more to spend.

In other words I suggested we create a race in which the poor start earning what the rich do to even out the economy. Hehe, and I got hit with the fact that this would cause inflation. But inflation for who? For anybody with money, of course.

But what about this fabulous expanding pie? What is the meaning of the rich going from 50 to 70 percent of the wealth. What happens at 90 or 99% if the trend continues. I say the result is that one person will eventually own everything and all the rest will have nothing at all. What kind of inflation do you have then. In that world the only thing of value will be bread.

An expanding pie is meaningless if the number of people who are poor continues to remain the same. Even if their income expands prices will rise faster than their wages because the rich will have vastly more money to spend on goods. Their increasing wealth will create inflation, will it not. An oversupply of money chasing limited goods?

Vic didn't think giving the poor more money would work but had no problem with the rich earning more. I thought that rather strange so I suggested as a cure what he, I thought, was also suggesting. :) Hehe, that created quite an uproar.

But you are right, I don't know much about economics or any thing else for that matter. I just feel my way.
Nice attempt to cover. :) Of course, noone here took issue with inflation being the result of your idea. That was only the byproduct of that particular foolishness. It's pretty amusing that someone with such utter lacking of knowledge in basic economics is talking about points going over people's heads, but that does fit right into the self-worship at the altar of your own intellect you seem prone to. (No doubt my note of this will elicit a eight-paragraph response from you talking about your favourite subject: Yourself.)

You really only further exemplify your attempt to cover a glaring example of this lack of knowledge by continuing onwards to suggest this race take place between the poor and the rich. How ridiculous to think that the value of effort between the rich and the poor would magically equal each other if only the compensation for those individual efforts were equal. No artifice you can possibly imagine can contradict the reality that some people are simply capable of producing more economic value than others.

Vic is completely correct in saying that it does not matter how wealthy the rich are when talking about the state of the poor. Your happiness is not determined in relation to the happiness of your next door neighbour. One would think that of all people, you might understand that.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I agree about giving government broad powers in regards to public welfare; but...how do propose the government take a piece of the richest's pie and distributing it to the poor? How do you base it? On income? Net worth? Raise taxes yet again?

The details don't matter too much compared to the principle of keeping wealth reasonably distributed. Remember one reason for that: so that it's incenting productivity.

Adjustments to the progressive tax rates, and the estate tax, can largely do it, for one answer.

When our nation has monopoly government-run healthcare, airlines, auto manufacturing, banking, and so on, you can say it's socialist; the fact it has some limited areas, like those mentioned or the post office and Amtrak, doesn't make this a socialist nation - which wouldn't be unconstitutional, anyway.

I completely agree; however, socialism as defined by Marx et al (for which the largest of socialist/communist countries build their framework) dictates more of a supply and demand economy than we have now. By doing so, the government decides what services are needed. If this were the case we wouldnt have as many airline companies, healthcare companies, drug companies, banking institutions, etc...thus removing competitiveness from the marketplace.

Right; but you didn't mention the other side of the coin, when doing things through the government works better for people, because a combination of profit and especially the things that can prevent competition can make the costs go up. For example, all credible analysis I've seen says that the Social Security system is efficiently run as far as overhead; and whatever the benefits of allowing riskier, more profitable investments, all the privatization schemes increase the overhead, taken out of those riskier higher returns.

That's why Wall Street drools at the chance to get its paws on the huge amount of money, and donates to get politicians elected who will do it, the price paid by the recipients.


If the inequality is at a moderate level, by which I mean the economy is operating with large incentives for productivity and not at the more extreme levels of wealth preservation by the wealthy, then you don't need to fix it; but unfortunately, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" and you do need to take steps to avoid the natural trend to what humanity has usually had, a few very rich and masses of poor.

I disagree that it's unfair. What should be rewarded most...the creator of a company that makes widgets or the guy who actually makes them? I say it's the creator. Such is the basis for an entrepenor-ish economy.

I'm all for rewarding the creator of a company that makes widgets more than the guy who makes them.

What I'm not in favor of is the guy who is simply wealthy having such a large share of the wealth that the guy who makes the company makes a lot less for doing it.

The wealthy dynasties tend to stop being very productive, and merely are wealthy, draining society of the money to be used for rewarding productivity.

For each Bill Gates you know of who earned his money, broadly speaking, you have not heard of some little-known family passing its wealth from generation to generation who merely has money managers use the money to get yet richer - something we're seeing as the top 0.01% go up hundreds of percent in wealth while the bottom 80% is flat after inflation. It's an oppression of capital. They give the illusion of everyone sharing through stock, but look at the breakdown of who owns what stock sometime.

The middle class owns a little bit that makes them keep favoring the system, but most is owned by few who are increasing the inequality of wealth, without productivity.

Rather than digress to the topic of the behavior of the poor and the rich, I'll say that I think you are neglecting the huge area of systemic issues which artifically protect the wealth of the wealthy not for any reason of earning it, but as a function of their power to protect their own interests; and that you're over-generalizing, while there's some truth to your point.

Well, yeah. The system is in place to PROTECT what has already been earned. Why shouldnt it?[/quote]

Because when it's protecting the wealth of the wealthy to an extreme, as they get a higher andhigher percetage ownership of society, it harms the economy and other citizens.

It's not as if the wealthy increasing how much they have is in a vacuum doing no harm; it's draining money for productivity for the economy. It's limiting the reward for others.


The Estate Tax is an outstanding measure, putting individual merit ahead of who your parents are for determining your share, which increases the nation's productivity.

I very strongly disagree... the point of view of the parent's side. Wouldn't you WANT to leave money to your kids? Wouldn't you WANT to protect the income and wealth you produced? Why would someone just throw it away? Wouldn't you WANT your grand-children to be taken care of? If not, why wouldn't you?

You can replace [wealthy] parent with any American: wouldn't you WANT more money for whatever use? Of course. What's singling out one group got to do with it?

You asked a question how to balance the extreme concentration of wealth is one great way. Don't think of it as a tax in a vacuum; think of it as dollars back in your pocket.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree, but if I accumulated $100,000, a million, or a billion..the thought of NOT leaving it with family and having to give it back after working hard for it makes me sick to my stomach. Maybe you're OK with it. *shrug* Oh and about the estate tax...what's so fair about double taxing money? ?Wouldnt it piss you off were it YOUR money?

You can better accumulate wealth if the estate tax is in place; only those who have done so pay it. the thought of not being able to acccumalte the fortune doesn't sicken you, because it's not as obvious the effect of removing the estate tax; it's easier to see the money it takes from the wealthy than to see the money taken from everyone else by not haveing the tax.

And it's mostly not double taxation; wealthy families can leave untaxed capital gains earning more for generations, increasing their wealth without any taxation.

It's a bit like your 401(k), which gives you the same type of option for a very limited amount of money, while they can do it with billions.

That's money out of your pocket, but it's not obvious.

The statisic I mentioned earlier about the 50-50 split on wealth going to 75-25 for the top 5% of people, and a new one I'll mention that nearly 100% of all productivity gains in the economy in the past 25 years have gone to the top 20% (after inflation) - unprecedented in the nation's history, as I understand, contrary to the idea that the gains are shared - it's clear that the system is not in the 'middle' situation. It's moving to the wealthy's favor.

Sign of a healthy and growning economy IMHO.

That's absurd. If the bottom 95% reducing their share of society's wealth from 50% to 25% is a sign of a healthy and growing economy, how low can you say that? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0%? Why not let all Americans share in the pie getting bigger, so the split remains 50-50? Are you confusing the idea of growing the size of the pie, with increasing the concentration of wealth?


What's the equivalent of "socialism" for describing the counterpart policies which INCREASE the inequality of wealth to extremes?

It's called capitalism.

No, it's not. You seem not yet to be seeing the other side of the spectrum from too much wealth equality, with too much wealth inequality.

Capitalism includes the 'middle' inequality I'm saying is good. You make my point, though, by showing how there is no easy word for 'too much wealth inequality' the way that socialism represents the other side, and is easy for people to argue against. If you're for a middle level of inequality and against extreme inequality, according to you you oppose capitalism, and that's wrong.

Clearly, we need some better, popular words for extreme wealth inequality that people can use for the issue to even get discussed.

Otherwise, all they'll do is keep arguing only the 'socialism' side, which is not where our economy is. Our economy is way over on the other side of high concentration of wealth.

And we're increasingly paying a price for most Americans both in terms of the economy and in terms of their share.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There are many ways to more evenly spread the distribution of wealth in america, most of them don't involve confiscation of wealth. Monetary policy, healthcare, education, etc can all have their roles. At the moment, many government policies are set against the poor and middle income and in favor of those with large amounts of wealth.

eh...you're so wrong I dont even know where to start. If what you say is true, why are corporations, families, and individuals moving their money OUTSIDE of the country so quickly? Dave posted an article about this trend a few months back. Another popular tactic was denouncing citizenship in favor of a country with wealth-friendly laws. Then, just keep your residency in the USA and visit whenever you want. It was happening so frequently a law was passed to expand your tax burden 10 years should you decide to do this.

Tell me why this is happening if the tax laws are so wealthy-friendly?

its happening because tax laws are wealth friendly. A more severe non-wealth friendly action might be the confiscation of asset of people who renounce citizenship, for example.

The problem, sir, is you didnt read what I wrote. You can believe it or not, doesnt matter to me. But what I said is fact. Companies are moving their workforces out of country due to increased tax liability.

As far as confiscating assets...how would you confiscate something that doesnt lie or isnt part of American soil? Right. You cant. Put a little thought into your argument next time.

the problem with your argument is that the government is offering lower taxes and more subsidies all the time.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Craig: Im not going to repost the lengthy bits and pieces. All I will say is you and I live in a different America. Looking at different sides of the same coin perhaps, but your ideas of the way it "should be" are not only alien to me, but frighten me.

So we'll agree to disagree. We both made our points.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There are many ways to more evenly spread the distribution of wealth in america, most of them don't involve confiscation of wealth. Monetary policy, healthcare, education, etc can all have their roles. At the moment, many government policies are set against the poor and middle income and in favor of those with large amounts of wealth.

eh...you're so wrong I dont even know where to start. If what you say is true, why are corporations, families, and individuals moving their money OUTSIDE of the country so quickly? Dave posted an article about this trend a few months back. Another popular tactic was denouncing citizenship in favor of a country with wealth-friendly laws. Then, just keep your residency in the USA and visit whenever you want. It was happening so frequently a law was passed to expand your tax burden 10 years should you decide to do this.

Tell me why this is happening if the tax laws are so wealthy-friendly?

its happening because tax laws are wealth friendly. A more severe non-wealth friendly action might be the confiscation of asset of people who renounce citizenship, for example.

The problem, sir, is you didnt read what I wrote. You can believe it or not, doesnt matter to me. But what I said is fact. Companies are moving their workforces out of country due to increased tax liability.

As far as confiscating assets...how would you confiscate something that doesnt lie or isnt part of American soil? Right. You cant. Put a little thought into your argument next time.

the problem with your argument is that the government is offering lower taxes and more subsidies all the time.

Do we live in the same country? My breakdown of why wealth is moving out of this country is not only based on my limited personal experiences with friends of mine who have done this, but your statement doesnt match what I read in Forbes, Kiplinger, The Robb Report, and Fortune.

They could be wrong though *shrug*
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If we are not dividing pie then why not pay the poor the same amount of money as the rich make? Give everybody a million a year. Tax revenues will go up as well as most people's standard of living. It will be great.
:confused:

Like I said, Moonie, it's not static. If you gave everybody a million a year, then a million would stop being a lot of money.
Then every year you increase it to where it is a lot of money. Problem solved.
Welp, someone's never taken a course in economics in their lifetime. Nor ever read about the First World War, it seems. Colour me unsurprised.

Look, yllus, I was making a point in response to a post by Vic I assumed he would understand, but which, like with ElFenix, Genx87, you and God knows how many others, went right over your heads.

The thread opened with the notion that the poor had experienced an earnings growth over that last number of years with the assumption that this is a good thing. Then it was pointed out that the numbers don't mean much without tanking inflation into consideration and also that people were also in fact working longer hours as well as the fact that the share of the pie going to the poor had dropped.

Vic pointed out that the pie is not static so it doesn't matter how much the rich get, with the assumption, I think, on his part that more for the poor is better even if there is also much much more now for the rich.

This argument strikes me as totally false and to indicate that fact I suggested that all that was needed to fix it is to pay the poor more so they will be able to have more to spend.

In other words I suggested we create a race in which the poor start earning what the rich do to even out the economy. Hehe, and I got hit with the fact that this would cause inflation. But inflation for who? For anybody with money, of course.

But what about this fabulous expanding pie? What is the meaning of the rich going from 50 to 70 percent of the wealth. What happens at 90 or 99% if the trend continues. I say the result is that one person will eventually own everything and all the rest will have nothing at all. What kind of inflation do you have then. In that world the only thing of value will be bread.

An expanding pie is meaningless if the number of people who are poor continues to remain the same. Even if their income expands prices will rise faster than their wages because the rich will have vastly more money to spend on goods. Their increasing wealth will create inflation, will it not. An oversupply of money chasing limited goods?

Vic didn't think giving the poor more money would work but had no problem with the rich earning more. I thought that rather strange so I suggested as a cure what he, I thought, was also suggesting. :) Hehe, that created quite an uproar.

But you are right, I don't know much about economics or any thing else for that matter. I just feel my way.

Believe it or not Moon there are ponts I agree with; however, there is one glaring mistake in your statement about giving more to the poor to have more to spend...they will still be poor. I saw a special on HBO last year about some guy who was bouncing between living with family and on the street. He was given 1 million cash in exchange for letting HBO follow his moves and to keep tabs on what he spent. The bottom line is...it was gone in less than a year. He didnt even do anything spectacular. All this proves my point when I say the poor are that way not because our society keeps them down, or that people dont care, or that low wage jobs hold them back. They are poor, and will stay poor because they are too naive or too lazy to manage their money and get out of their predicament THEY THEMSELVES create. It's no one's fault but their own.

I only said give more to the poor to explode the notion that an expanding pie has any relation to the problem. All things being equal if the pie expands the cost of goods expands to soak up the extra capital. The poor will stay as poor as they have always been.

In the first place, regarding your point, you can't build a theory on one HBO example or even many. You are saying the poor are poor because they are poor mentally in the area of making money. But what I have argued is that it's the system we live in, our culture, that makes them that way. I completely agree there are multitudes of poor who are exactly as you describe but they are not all that way and many people who were poor are not poor today.

What you are describing is, in my opinion, just another manifestation of what I have been saying all along, that we hate ourselves. The more extreme this self hate is the more visible and understandable and obvious it becomes to more or less normal ordinary people, who do not see themselves as having this same disease, but which I claim they have regardless of what they say. If you carefully study people you will see that they sabotage their own happiness in countless ways. It is because they feel worthless and project out on to life that others are out to get them, to make them feel bad etc etc etc, and so they get into fights with any and all around them and engage in other self destructive acts. Volumes could be written about this and I will assume, perhaps without justification, that you see some of this.

The system we live in is a culture characterized by put downs. We were told from day one to be like other, 'the good' people and threatened with all manner of evil if we did not measure up. We were put through a concentration camp the memory of which we have completely repressed because we could not have survived openly and continually experiencing our pain. We became model citizens filled with competitive glee. Our system of competition is nothing more than repressed hate. That is the system that slops over into our economic system creating a dog eat dog world.

Those most damaged in this hell we have created are down at the bottom with other poor, too psychologically damaged to function. It is not, as you claim their fault, although only they will have to take the first step in helping themselves. Vic thinks I have some megalomaniacal aspect that I have to crusade somehow, but to my way of thinking, you tell those who suffer from self hate that their problems are their own fault, and I say that only perpetuates their sickness, it being exactly what they feel and want to hear. I say that their problem is a fiction, that there is nothing wrong with them. I say that only self knowledge of a real kind can help people out. I say the system is designed to make you hate yourself, that you do in fact, and that there is no escape from that unless you can start to see it. I am suggesting that you be a Hero, not me. I am not important at all.

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There are many ways to more evenly spread the distribution of wealth in america, most of them don't involve confiscation of wealth. Monetary policy, healthcare, education, etc can all have their roles. At the moment, many government policies are set against the poor and middle income and in favor of those with large amounts of wealth.

eh...you're so wrong I dont even know where to start. If what you say is true, why are corporations, families, and individuals moving their money OUTSIDE of the country so quickly? Dave posted an article about this trend a few months back. Another popular tactic was denouncing citizenship in favor of a country with wealth-friendly laws. Then, just keep your residency in the USA and visit whenever you want. It was happening so frequently a law was passed to expand your tax burden 10 years should you decide to do this.

Tell me why this is happening if the tax laws are so wealthy-friendly?

its happening because tax laws are wealth friendly. A more severe non-wealth friendly action might be the confiscation of asset of people who renounce citizenship, for example.

The problem, sir, is you didnt read what I wrote. You can believe it or not, doesnt matter to me. But what I said is fact. Companies are moving their workforces out of country due to increased tax liability.

As far as confiscating assets...how would you confiscate something that doesnt lie or isnt part of American soil? Right. You cant. Put a little thought into your argument next time.

the problem with your argument is that the government is offering lower taxes and more subsidies all the time.

Do we live in the same country? My breakdown of why wealth is moving out of this country is not only based on my limited personal experiences with friends of mine who have done this, but your statement doesnt match what I read in Forbes, Kiplinger, The Robb Report, and Fortune.

They could be wrong though *shrug*

So are you saying that we haven't cut taxes in topend income, capital gains, inheirited income, and the like. The outmigration of capital has little to nothing to do with tax rates Its about an increasingly open and free global market for goods and capital.

If you getting your economics for forbes and such places, your economics proably aren't very good. Their subscribers pay to have a certain ideology provided, and this iswhat these magazines do.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Vic: I don't look at it quite so simplistically. Nor do I look at it the way Moonie tried to portray me either.

M: I wish you would express how you thought I tried to portray you and how that should be corrected instead of these generalities I can only guess at.

V: The problem is that, while we are all humans beings and therefore all guaranteed the same basic rights, we are not all the same. Except for some simple basics, we all have different needs, wants, desires, and goals. Which is where Craig and Moonie's philosophies fail utterly, as they assume that we all want the same thing AND are willing to work together for all those same things.

M: Yes, but the differences are minor compared to the similarities. You see man as he is and I as I think he can become and was when born, at unity in the universe. I believe that all people everywhere experience from time to time a transcendent state of unity that is the source of all religions. I believe that unconsciously all human striving is really to return to that state, the perfection we know before language. You are free to disagree but I think the power of diagnostic supplied by my understand is explicative in the extreme.

V: Why, according to them, it's only because of the selfish evil of an elite few and an ignorant many that they are denied from making their personal utopias into reality, and surely not because we all want different utopias.

M: Not at all. I have pointed out thousands of times the error and illusion of blaming the other. The only thing that bars my door is me, my feeling that I do not deserve to go to heaven. ;)

V: Sadly, their philosophies, because they are based on this delusion shared want, that we all do (or should) want exactly as they want, always end up the same way: in mass murder.

M: The delusion that it is the other's fault sure does.

V: They need to learn to let people live their own lives. Give each person the opportunity they need and let it go. But sadly, that won't happen, and they will fight to push their utopias on others as others will fight to push their utopias on them, and war, death, pain, and humiliation will continue indefinitely.

M: I need nothing from you or any other. Surely a good ego death and resurrection will give you all that you need, no? I speak only in the off chance it might cause you to reflect or think, to look at things in a light you never have. I say what I see and that's about it.

V: And never, NEVER will they accept their own personal role. Always it will be some evil enemy's fault. Always there will be some Satan, which they will seem themselves fighting against in some noble Hero's role, and never will they see that they created the Satan in their own minds for exactly the purpose of playing out the Hero's role for themselves.

M: My job is to be my hero and yours is to be yours. Everything you warn of is very very real, but is it always real and in every case.

Am I to assume, for example, that you want to be that Hero who came to save us from Heroes?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Look, yllus, I was making a point in response to a post by Vic I assumed he would understand, but which, like with ElFenix, Genx87, you and God knows how many others, went right over your heads.

The thread opened with the notion that the poor had experienced an earnings growth over that last number of years with the assumption that this is a good thing. Then it was pointed out that the numbers don't mean much without tanking inflation into consideration and also that people were also in fact working longer hours as well as the fact that the share of the pie going to the poor had dropped.

Vic pointed out that the pie is not static so it doesn't matter how much the rich get, with the assumption, I think, on his part that more for the poor is better even if there is also much much more now for the rich.

This argument strikes me as totally false and to indicate that fact I suggested that all that was needed to fix it is to pay the poor more so they will be able to have more to spend.

In other words I suggested we create a race in which the poor start earning what the rich do to even out the economy. Hehe, and I got hit with the fact that this would cause inflation. But inflation for who? For anybody with money, of course.

But what about this fabulous expanding pie? What is the meaning of the rich going from 50 to 70 percent of the wealth. What happens at 90 or 99% if the trend continues. I say the result is that one person will eventually own everything and all the rest will have nothing at all. What kind of inflation do you have then. In that world the only thing of value will be bread.

An expanding pie is meaningless if the number of people who are poor continues to remain the same. Even if their income expands prices will rise faster than their wages because the rich will have vastly more money to spend on goods. Their increasing wealth will create inflation, will it not. An oversupply of money chasing limited goods?

Vic didn't think giving the poor more money would work but had no problem with the rich earning more. I thought that rather strange so I suggested as a cure what he, I thought, was also suggesting. :) Hehe, that created quite an uproar.

But you are right, I don't know much about economics or any thing else for that matter. I just feel my way.
Nice attempt to cover. :) Of course, noone here took issue with inflation being the result of your idea. That was only the byproduct of that particular foolishness. It's pretty amusing that someone with such utter lacking of knowledge in basic economics is talking about points going over people's heads, but that does fit right into the self-worship at the altar of your own intellect you seem prone to. (No doubt my note of this will elicit a eight-paragraph response from you talking about your favourite subject: Yourself.)

You really only further exemplify your attempt to cover a glaring example of this lack of knowledge by continuing onwards to suggest this race take place between the poor and the rich. How ridiculous to think that the value of effort between the rich and the poor would magically equal each other if only the compensation for those individual efforts were equal. No artifice you can possibly imagine can contradict the reality that some people are simply capable of producing more economic value than others.

Vic is completely correct in saying that it does not matter how wealthy the rich are when talking about the state of the poor. Your happiness is not determined in relation to the happiness of your next door neighbour. One would think that of all people, you might understand that.

Let me know when you get back from lunch.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Am I to assume, for example, that you want to be that Hero who came to save us from Heroes?
No, I'm not like you. I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm not under the delusion that I can save others without having saved myself first. You should heed The Teacher's advice and do the same, save yourself (if you must), before you try to be the Hero for the rest of us. If you must think of me as trying to act the Hero, then think of a helpful person trying to talk a jumper back from the ledge, trying not to do good, but merely prevent harm if I can.

Asimov said it best IMO, "People mistake their own faults for those of society, and then try to save society because they don't know how to save themselves." Reality is a shared hallucination, and we only see what we want to see, we only create what we want to create.

There is a reason, Moonie, why your wonderful and enlightened philosophy is motivated first by fear and outrage, and why (because of that) the results can't be anything resembling what you would want them to be. We've had this discussion before.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Although that article is crap and its already been pointed out, i feel the need to beat a dead horse here.

The article specifically says the bottom 5ths wages increased from working more.

Their wages have not really increased, they are working more to get less.

All you have to do is look around, kids living with their parents until they are 25+ because they cant afford to live on their own... People with families having both parents work 2 or even 3 jobs just to get by... Anyone who really believes the poor are better off recently are just stupid, nieve, or both.
I think you are missing the idea behind the ?working more? bit.
In the old days they just collected welfare and sat around the house.
Now they can no longer do that and instead have to go out and work to earn a living.

You noticed that between 1991 and 2005 their ?earned? income went from $6000 a year to $11,000 a year.
Also, do the math. Minimum wage is $5.15 an hour nationally; in many states it is higher.
If you are only making $5.15 an hour you only have to work 41 hours a week to make $11,000 a year.
The average clerk at Wal-Mart makes $8.50 an hour, to make $11,000 they only have to work 24 hours a week.

So if you are implying that these people are working two jobs 60 hours a week the math does not add up in your favor.

Your math doesnt calculate inflation.

wow youre right. 3 1/2% average inflation is a killer! Well, at $10/hr a 35 cent raise will do it!

http://inflationdata.com/infla...te/AnnualInflation.asp

Most large retail corporations (where at lot of the working poor are working) dont give regular raises. The ones that do, find ways to get rid of higher paid employees in order to keep costs low.

Also 3.5% year over year is not 3.5% from 1980 to 2000 ;)

And are taxes already removed from your figures?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Although that article is crap and its already been pointed out, i feel the need to beat a dead horse here.

The article specifically says the bottom 5ths wages increased from working more.

Their wages have not really increased, they are working more to get less.

All you have to do is look around, kids living with their parents until they are 25+ because they cant afford to live on their own... People with families having both parents work 2 or even 3 jobs just to get by... Anyone who really believes the poor are better off recently are just stupid, nieve, or both.
I think you are missing the idea behind the ?working more? bit.
In the old days they just collected welfare and sat around the house.
Now they can no longer do that and instead have to go out and work to earn a living.

You noticed that between 1991 and 2005 their ?earned? income went from $6000 a year to $11,000 a year.
Also, do the math. Minimum wage is $5.15 an hour nationally; in many states it is higher.
If you are only making $5.15 an hour you only have to work 41 hours a week to make $11,000 a year.
The average clerk at Wal-Mart makes $8.50 an hour, to make $11,000 they only have to work 24 hours a week.

So if you are implying that these people are working two jobs 60 hours a week the math does not add up in your favor.

Your math doesnt calculate inflation.

wow youre right. 3 1/2% average inflation is a killer! Well, at $10/hr a 35 cent raise will do it!

http://inflationdata.com/infla...te/AnnualInflation.asp

Most large retail corporations (where at lot of the working poor are working) dont give regular raises. The ones that do, find ways to get rid of higher paid employees in order to keep costs low.

Also 3.5% year over year is not 3.5% from 1980 to 2000 ;)

And are taxes already removed from your figures?

If you took the time to look at the site I posted you will see they have figures going back to 1914, including how they figure it. Im not going to spoon feed you. Sorry. Sorry, but though we had periods of terrible inflation, the average really isnt that high. But you are free to believe what you want.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If we are not dividing pie then why not pay the poor the same amount of money as the rich make? Give everybody a million a year. Tax revenues will go up as well as most people's standard of living. It will be great.
:confused:

Like I said, Moonie, it's not static. If you gave everybody a million a year, then a million would stop being a lot of money.
Then every year you increase it to where it is a lot of money. Problem solved.
Welp, someone's never taken a course in economics in their lifetime. Nor ever read about the First World War, it seems. Colour me unsurprised.

Look, yllus, I was making a point in response to a post by Vic I assumed he would understand, but which, like with ElFenix, Genx87, you and God knows how many others, went right over your heads.

The thread opened with the notion that the poor had experienced an earnings growth over that last number of years with the assumption that this is a good thing. Then it was pointed out that the numbers don't mean much without tanking inflation into consideration and also that people were also in fact working longer hours as well as the fact that the share of the pie going to the poor had dropped.

Vic pointed out that the pie is not static so it doesn't matter how much the rich get, with the assumption, I think, on his part that more for the poor is better even if there is also much much more now for the rich.

This argument strikes me as totally false and to indicate that fact I suggested that all that was needed to fix it is to pay the poor more so they will be able to have more to spend.

In other words I suggested we create a race in which the poor start earning what the rich do to even out the economy. Hehe, and I got hit with the fact that this would cause inflation. But inflation for who? For anybody with money, of course.

But what about this fabulous expanding pie? What is the meaning of the rich going from 50 to 70 percent of the wealth. What happens at 90 or 99% if the trend continues. I say the result is that one person will eventually own everything and all the rest will have nothing at all. What kind of inflation do you have then. In that world the only thing of value will be bread.

An expanding pie is meaningless if the number of people who are poor continues to remain the same. Even if their income expands prices will rise faster than their wages because the rich will have vastly more money to spend on goods. Their increasing wealth will create inflation, will it not. An oversupply of money chasing limited goods?

Vic didn't think giving the poor more money would work but had no problem with the rich earning more. I thought that rather strange so I suggested as a cure what he, I thought, was also suggesting. :) Hehe, that created quite an uproar.

But you are right, I don't know much about economics or any thing else for that matter. I just feel my way.

Believe it or not Moon there are ponts I agree with; however, there is one glaring mistake in your statement about giving more to the poor to have more to spend...they will still be poor. I saw a special on HBO last year about some guy who was bouncing between living with family and on the street. He was given 1 million cash in exchange for letting HBO follow his moves and to keep tabs on what he spent. The bottom line is...it was gone in less than a year. He didnt even do anything spectacular. All this proves my point when I say the poor are that way not because our society keeps them down, or that people dont care, or that low wage jobs hold them back. They are poor, and will stay poor because they are too naive or too lazy to manage their money and get out of their predicament THEY THEMSELVES create. It's no one's fault but their own.

I only said give more to the poor to explode the notion that an expanding pie has any relation to the problem. All things being equal if the pie expands the cost of goods expands to soak up the extra capital. The poor will stay as poor as they have always been.

In the first place, regarding your point, you can't build a theory on one HBO example or even many. . But what I have argued is that it's the system we live in, our culture, that makes them that way. I completely agree there are multitudes of poor who are exactly as you describe but they are not all that way and many people who were poor are not poor today.

What you are describing is, in my opinion, just another manifestation of what I have been saying all along, that we hate ourselves. The more extreme this self hate is the more visible and understandable and obvious it becomes to more or less normal ordinary people, who do not see themselves as having this same disease, but which I claim they have regardless of what they say. If you carefully study people you will see that they sabotage their own happiness in countless ways. It is because they feel worthless and project out on to life that others are out to get them, to make them feel bad etc etc etc, and so they get into fights with any and all around them and engage in other self destructive acts. Volumes could be written about this and I will assume, perhaps without justification, that you see some of this.

The system we live in is a culture characterized by put downs. We were told from day one to be like other, 'the good' people and threatened with all manner of evil if we did not measure up. We were put through a concentration camp the memory of which we have completely repressed because we could not have survived openly and continually experiencing our pain. We became model citizens filled with competitive glee. Our system of competition is nothing more than repressed hate. That is the system that slops over into our economic system creating a dog eat dog world.

Those most damaged in this hell we have created are down at the bottom with other poor, too psychologically damaged to function. It is not, as you claim their fault, although only they will have to take the first step in helping themselves. Vic thinks I have some megalomaniacal aspect that I have to crusade somehow, but to my way of thinking, you tell those who suffer from self hate that their problems are their own fault, and I say that only perpetuates their sickness, it being exactly what they feel and want to hear. I say that their problem is a fiction, that there is nothing wrong with them. I say that only self knowledge of a real kind can help people out. I say the system is designed to make you hate yourself, that you do in fact, and that there is no escape from that unless you can start to see it. I am suggesting that you be a Hero, not me. I am not important at all.

You apperantly didnt get past your own self delusional-more-enlighted-more-than-most self to read what I wrote, and you apperantly interprated what you want. You said:
You are saying the poor are poor because they are poor mentally in the area of making money
I didnt. What I said was, they are poor due to their inability to MNANAGE money. I have seen it with my own eyes so many times it's not even funny. Also, I have said many times generalitites are generally true. What I posted are generalities. Your examples are not. They are exceptions, which I have also pointed out make the rule.

Your assesment of this whole "self-hate" philosophy applies to the poor even moreso. They continue to make terrible and unwise choices in regards to their income and budgeting of said income. Unfortunately this lack of money management is also part of the reason the middle class is in the shape it's in. I think we can all agree those we work with whether they make 20k/year or 60k/year are one paycheck away from poverty. That is THEIR fault, no one elses. And dont start with the "you must be priveledged" rant. Im not. During tough career changes I have managed to keep my family sustained on $9/hour. So dont go there.

Oh. And if you think my example of HBO's special is rare, you are living in a bubble. There are studies that show what I describe happens to the majority of lottery winners as well. Get a clue man. I like debating you as you have some interesting points. But through all your prophetic-like posts you miss what people are saying. This whole "self-hate" philosophy is just absurd.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
blackangst1: You apperantly didnt get past your own self delusional-more-enlighted-more-than-most self to read what I wrote, and you apperantly interprated what you want. You said:

M: Have you given any thought to why you talk this way? Do you not see that your assumptions that I see myself as more enlightened than you, your irritation with the notion that I make such a claim, that it might even be true, are all about irritations you feel for yourself, your need not to feel how stupid in the past others have tired to make you feel. I am either more enlightened than you are or I am not. If I am more enlightened then you might want to listen to me and if I am less so then your own greater enlightenment will kick in in the form of kindness toward me in wanting to share your greater understanding. But the fact is you are in some kind of competition with me as to which of us is right and your lack of grace and kindness springs from your own inner lack. You have never, my guess is, followed your irritations to the rage that is within and made a connection with that rage to the pain it protects you from feeling so, in effect, in my opinion, you know nothing substantial about yourself. I believe I have journeyed where you have not and seen what you don't know. I do not really care whether you think so or not. I think that facts can be facts without any emotional baggage attached to them. I see things you do not and that's it. It doesn't make me better than you. It doesn't mean I have to prove it. It doesn't mean I am reveling in some sense of superiority. You will either agree and see something of what I say or you will not. I see my job as to be honest to what I believe and let the chips fall where they may.

b: quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are saying the poor are poor because they are poor mentally in the area of making money
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didnt. What I said was, they are poor due to their inability to MNANAGE money.

M: Yes I know what you said. I simply tried to encapsulate that notion in my own way without going back or using a quote, the inability to manage money as a kind of mental poverty.

b: I have seen it with my own eyes so many times it's not even funny. Also, I have said many times generalitites are generally true. What I posted are generalities. Your examples are not. They are exceptions, which I have also pointed out make the rule.

Yes yes yes, I said there is great truth in what you say. My HBO point was a caution against broad generalizations from specifics since Vic had mentioned your case was simplistic. I also know about the lottery thing. We agree of the facts but you do not see what I see in them. You have nothing that explains why people exhibit this phenomenon. You call the symptom the disease.

b: Your assesment of this whole "self-hate" philosophy applies to the poor even moreso.

M: I said it is most visible in those with the worst self esteem.

b: They continue to make terrible and unwise choices in regards to their income and budgeting of said income.

M: But you have no idea why. I know why. They have to to stay close to how they feel. We are impelled to return and get close to how bad we feel but always in an unconscious way. We always walk backward into our trauma. We are magnetized by the past and circle around our early disaster.

b: Unfortunately this lack of money management is also part of the reason the middle class is in the shape it's in. I think we can all agree those we work with whether they make 20k/year or 60k/year are one paycheck away from poverty. That is THEIR fault, no one elses. And dont start with the "you must be priveledged" rant. Im not. During tough career changes I have managed to keep my family sustained on $9/hour. So dont go there.

M: Hehe, you are having a punching bag episode with a phantom player. Your view is in fact very simplistic, just as Vic said. The reason people are poor is because they lack money management skills. If this were the case one should in fact be able to pick a bum up out of the gutter and teach him how to manage money. I would think the world would have been saved long ago if it were really a lack of knowledge on how to manage money.

Don't you see that people are where they want to be. They do not manage money because they do not want to. They have a need to be poor, to screw themselves this way and that. They are driven by factors they are not conscious are in play. You blame them because you hold in contempt that part of yourself that is like them. You flatter yourself with your notion that you know how to manage money and are better than them. No, you just have a different way to screw yourself. You are poor in the area of meekness and modesty. But you are right; they do not know how to manage money.

b: Oh. And if you think my example of HBO's special is rare, you are living in a bubble. There are studies that show what I describe happens to the majority of lottery winners as well. Get a clue man. I like debating you as you have some interesting points. But through all your prophetic-like posts you miss what people are saying. This whole "self-hate" philosophy is just absurd.

M: I think it is you who suffer what you describe. Self hate certainly explains why people do not have money management skills. You have some other suggestion as to why? Self hate explains everything in the world about people whose self hate is so intense it is obvious to see. What you don't see is that it also explains you. You do not want to know the pain you have been through and still suffer from and feel. I can't make you nor would I force you if I could. It is something only you can use. There are a few folk you can save by teaching them money management but they will be the ones who are ripe for a change.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Am I to assume, for example, that you want to be that Hero who came to save us from Heroes?
No, I'm not like you. I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm not under the delusion that I can save others without having saved myself first. You should heed The Teacher's advice and do the same, save yourself (if you must), before you try to be the Hero for the rest of us. If you must think of me as trying to act the Hero, then think of a helpful person trying to talk a jumper back from the ledge, trying not to do good, but merely prevent harm if I can.

Asimov said it best IMO, "People mistake their own faults for those of society, and then try to save society because they don't know how to save themselves." Reality is a shared hallucination, and we only see what we want to see, we only create what we want to create.

There is a reason, Moonie, why your wonderful and enlightened philosophy is motivated first by fear and outrage, and why (because of that) the results can't be anything resembling what you would want them to be. We've had this discussion before.

I think I understand this. I can't save you. I have said over and over that people can't use the truth. I do think I have some facts, that being one, that might help a serious traveler.

I invite you to tell me more about my fear and outrage. I seem already to have forgotten or repressed it nor would it, I should think, be easy for me to understand.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Although that article is crap and its already been pointed out, i feel the need to beat a dead horse here.

The article specifically says the bottom 5ths wages increased from working more.

Their wages have not really increased, they are working more to get less.

All you have to do is look around, kids living with their parents until they are 25+ because they cant afford to live on their own... People with families having both parents work 2 or even 3 jobs just to get by... Anyone who really believes the poor are better off recently are just stupid, nieve, or both.
I think you are missing the idea behind the ?working more? bit.
In the old days they just collected welfare and sat around the house.
Now they can no longer do that and instead have to go out and work to earn a living.

You noticed that between 1991 and 2005 their ?earned? income went from $6000 a year to $11,000 a year.
Also, do the math. Minimum wage is $5.15 an hour nationally; in many states it is higher.
If you are only making $5.15 an hour you only have to work 41 hours a week to make $11,000 a year.
The average clerk at Wal-Mart makes $8.50 an hour, to make $11,000 they only have to work 24 hours a week.

So if you are implying that these people are working two jobs 60 hours a week the math does not add up in your favor.

Your math doesnt calculate inflation.

wow youre right. 3 1/2% average inflation is a killer! Well, at $10/hr a 35 cent raise will do it!

http://inflationdata.com/infla...te/AnnualInflation.asp

Most large retail corporations (where at lot of the working poor are working) dont give regular raises. The ones that do, find ways to get rid of higher paid employees in order to keep costs low.

Also 3.5% year over year is not 3.5% from 1980 to 2000 ;)

And are taxes already removed from your figures?

If you took the time to look at the site I posted you will see they have figures going back to 1914, including how they figure it. Im not going to spoon feed you. Sorry. Sorry, but though we had periods of terrible inflation, the average really isnt that high. But you are free to believe what you want.

Uhh all that chart says is the inflation rate is slowing and its based on the CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.

Having taken economics courses you would of course know that the CPI does not include the costs of volatile goods.

Namely utilities and gasoline.

I dont know where youre trying to go with this, but 20 years of inflation when talking about a static minimum wage is a lot, even if inflation is low.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
So are you saying that we haven't cut taxes in topend income, capital gains, inheirited income, and the like. The outmigration of capital has little to nothing to do with tax rates Its about an increasingly open and free global market for goods and capital.

If you getting your economics for forbes and such places, your economics proably aren't very good. Their subscribers pay to have a certain ideology provided, and this iswhat these magazines do.
We have cut taxes on EVERYONE.

Nearly 30% of the country pays NO income tax at all, and many of these people actually get money from the government via earned income.
Under the Bush tax cuts around 4 million people are no longer paying income tax.