But but but billionaires! waaahhhhhhhh

[The Russian]

Dirt poor blacks from africa moving in America get richer during a lifetime than afro Americans who lived all their live there and for multiple generations. I don’t buy into the generational wealth bs theory.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Building slightly on what @panamaican and @JudoThrowFiasco have said already, there's really only so much you can do to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Reason being that the return on labour is much smaller than the return on capital. That means that the easiest way to get rich is...well...to already be rich. A rich guy could speculatively put, say, 10 million into a promising company, and double his money. Meanwhile if you were born in the projects, you could study your ass off, get a degree, and a profession, and end up making less than that in your entire lifetime, most of which will be consumed by your living expenses.

A rich man's hunch can mean more than an entire lifetime of good decisions.

Yeah, but thats a 50'000 ft overlook of it focusing on "rich" v "poor"

While it is significantly more difficult for the project kid to grow up and obtain 0.5% class wealth -- there are still pathways for him/her to obtain "working rich" status -- with hope of their future generation expanding on that. That has been seen by a wide variety of immigration groups in the US. Not to say there are not factors the impact people more and harsher than others -- being poor in one area doesnt come with the roadblocks of being poor in another, etc.

It is also worth noting that this is a period in time in which young educated people have significant pathways to obtaining steady wealth fairly quickly. Millionaires have increased significantly but middle class is also shrinking. In demand skills is trumping a solid work ethic in many regards for every day people.

Also, the fastest way to wealth in the US (if you dont come from wealth) -- is being 7 foot tall -- as they have nearly a 1/5 chance of being in the NBA

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Dirt poor blacks from africa moving in America get richer during a lifetime than afro Americans who lived all their live there and for multiple generations. I don’t buy into the generational wealth bs theory.

Its not really this simple. Most Africans immigrating to the West already have money/education, plus many come from failed states so have more impetus/motivation to succeed.

 

[Rational Poster]

So whenever we get into a discussion about wealth and inequality and the idea of people saving and investing their own money, you know, little by little so they can start to gradually build wealth, it is dismissed by several people here as "MAGtard bootstrap something something"

I'm assuming the alternative is you just get handed some money and get to be rich for free? Can someone explain how this system would work? It sounds like communism, which failed already.

 

[Prokofievian]

Yeah, but thats a 50'000 ft overlook of it focusing on "rich" v "poor"

While it is significantly more difficult for the project kid to grow up and obtain 0.5% class wealth -- there are still pathways for him/her to obtain "working rich" status -- with hope of their future generation expanding on that. That has been seen by a wide variety of immigration groups in the US. Not to say there are not factors the impact people more and harsher than others -- being poor in one area doesnt come with the roadblocks of being poor in another, etc.

It is also worth noting that this is a period in time in which young educated people have significant pathways to obtaining steady wealth fairly quickly. Millionaires have increased significantly but middle class is also shrinking. In demand skills is trumping a solid work ethic in many regards for every day people.

Also, the fastest way to wealth in the US (if you dont come from wealth) -- is being 7 foot tall -- as they have nearly a 1/5 chance of being in the NBA

Sure, it is a broad strokes take on the issue, but when you zoom in it holds up. I come from an upper-middle-ish class family with some professional degrees and the outlook is pretty much the same for me, only I had much more room for error. The main takeaway of the post is that capital returns more than labour. This is true even now. This has a distributional effect summarized in the ''rich get richer, and the poor get poorer'' adage. It's the mechanism behind your 100m race analogy, only instead of just having starting positions, some people have motorcycles.

I think that, while my pithy statement at the end is a generalization it's an important point that gets ignored by the ''bootstraps'' argument.

P.S. Regarding being 7 feet tall, that would apply to approximately 1 in about...1.5-ish million people. Then only 1 in 5 of them actually make it. Yeesh, not great odds. lol Imagine being 7 feet tall, and uncoordinated as shit. So close!

 

[ManCityFC9]

So whenever we get into a discussion about wealth and inequality and the idea of people saving and investing their own money, you know, little by little so they can start to gradually build wealth, it is dismissed by several people here as "MAGtard bootstrap something something"

I'm assuming the alternative is you just get handed some money and get to be rich for free? Can someone explain how this system would work? It sounds like communism, which failed already.

Same question I've had


Maybe less tax loopholes, detailed review of all corporate expenses, and one hard , uniform, 10-15% tax on all income?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure, but "best outcome" has a different definition depending on who you ask.

Sure, but if you ask people what they think the ideal wealth distribution is, few if any will list the one we have in America now.

 

[ManCityFC9]

Yes but my argument from the beginning has been that even if you start on the 10000m line, then you can still try to help your situation. then even if your kids start on the 999m line that is moving in the right direction and if it continues then as was stated in a previous thread, the billionaires are passing their money down the generations. somewhere along the line there was a poor guy who started thinking to the future instead of complaining that he doesn't get it for free.

the problem with all these commie cucks is that they just want to get paid for hating on rich people. i'll never be a billionaire oligarch who manipulates the tax system but why the fuck would i want to be?

<{monica}>
Excellent point... what sense does the whining make?

Honestly people should be questioning the tax system and how the gov't spends rather than hating the rich

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Sure, but if you ask people what they think the ideal wealth distribution is, few if any will list the one we have in America now.

Few if any?

I think that statement is easily disproved.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Few if any?

I think that statement is easily disproved.

That's simple ignorance, though. Ask people what the distribution should be and compare it to what it is.

https://www.rawstory.com/2010/09/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/

According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden’s model over that of the US.

What’s more, the study’s authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html

In their study, Norton and Kiatpongsan asked about 55,000 people around the globe, including 1,581 participants in the U.S., how much money they thought corporate CEOs made compared with unskilled factory workers. Then they asked how much more pay they thought CEOs should make. The median American guessed that executives out-earned factory workers roughly 30-to-1—exponentially lower than the highest actual estimate of 354-to-1. They believed the ideal ratio would be about 7-to-1.

 

[Prokofievian]

Few if any?

I think that statement is easily disproved.

Are the respondents to this question even aware of the actual distribution of wealth in the country?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

That's simple ignorance, though. Ask people what the distribution should be and compare it to what it is.

https://www.rawstory.com/2010/09/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/



http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html

The link to the Study in the Raw article is dead -- of the 5000 americans, who did they ask? Did they specifically break down redistribution in sweden? What makes them less ignorant than the gallop poll? Also, 10% is hardly ''If any"

I want to see the questions asked.

 

[ManCityFC9]

No one is aguring that people should not do all that they can to better their situation -- they are critiquing the system that is in place that could be seen to help someone more and hinders others. And how they could change it to provide more opportunities to ease burdens and provide pathways for people to help themselves -- like being able to go to school without being in blinding hunger, etc. It's not about giving handouts (to most) but about shorting opportunity gaps.

Personally, I don't want to be charged more of my income so someone else can have an easier time as I prefer cut throat capitalism and the competition it breeds -- but I fully acknowledge that the systems is rigged against some and for others and that most poverty is a state of unavoidable circumstances and not always due to laziness.

Choose not to care but don't create fairy tales to make yourself feel superior about it.

Fair point
I do agree the tax system can be cleaner and corporate expenses should be audited in attempt to really level the playing field.
-the govt can also help the ideal of upward mobility by mitigating the cost of education and promoting proper guidance to high school graduates.

I am not too sure about causal factors of poverty being completely unavoidable; ever wonder why most of the poorest smoke, drink, and get caught in fashion trends?
-some financial education and big picture perspective can help there.

Fair points though; while I can hate on the wealthy, I can see your views on govt aiding some of the population in a form of education, level taxation, and responsible spending.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The link to the Study in the Raw article is dead -- of the 5000 americans, who did they ask? Did they specifically break down redistribution in sweden? What makes them less ignorant than the gallop poll? Also, 10% is hardly ''If any"

I want to see the questions asked.

Well, happy hunting.

My contention is that if asked to decide in advance on an acceptable distribution, few if any would select the current American one. The info you cited doesn't address that contention.

And frankly, I don't think it's really worth arguing over as I think it's obviously true (and it is confirmed by relevant studies, though, sure, it's possible there's some flaw). Note how Republicans, when touting the new tax law, were selling it as lifting middle-class incomes rather than justly redistributing income away from the middle class to the more-deserving rich. Why do you think that is? Objectively, at most, that's a small portion of what the changes do (and given that the redistribution effect is much larger than any plausible growth effect, it will lower middle-class incomes). My theory is that it is because they know that lifting middle-class incomes (absolutely and relative to higher-end incomes) is popular. Your theory is what?

 

[notori0us1]

Giving people equal opportunity to succeed is what is needed. This is not the same as handouts. Unfortunately a lot of lolbertarians and Republicans are privileged middle class white people so they don't seem to get this distinction, they have this illusion that they did it all by themselves and that the environment they grew up in had no effect on their success. They don't know or refuse to understand due to their own ignorance that growing up in a single parent home in a bad community going to shitty public schools means that you are far less likely succeed no matter how much harder you try. Is it possible? Yes. It's also possible for a lot of improbable things to happen but the chances of you making it are much harder.

We need to create a system where people don't fail just because of things they can't control, where every man, woman or child has the equal opportunity to become successful in order to contribute and make society better. This is better for everybody. The more people stay in poverty due to environment and circumstance the worse off society is.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Well, happy hunting.

My contention is that if asked to decide in advance on an acceptable distribution, few if any would select the current American one. The info you cited doesn't address that contention.

And frankly, I don't think it's really worth arguing over as I think it's obviously true (and it is confirmed by relevant studies, though, sure, it's possible there's some flaw). Note how Republicans, when touting the new tax law, were selling it as lifting middle-class incomes rather than justly redistributing income away from the middle class to the more-deserving rich. Why do you think that is? Objectively, at most, that's a small portion of what the changes do (and given that the redistribution effect is much larger than any plausible growth effect, it will lower middle-class incomes). My theory is that it is because they know that lifting middle-class incomes (absolutely and relative to higher-end incomes) is popular. Your theory is what?

The info i cited showed that 30% of the population supports the current US model. You brought up ignorance on their part of it and provided studies with a more specific question ( maybe, the study wasnt provided) My theory is historically 1/3 of the population will accept current distribution models . However, you are right that majority would not accept it and parties will pander to that group (earnestly of deceitfully) to obtain votes.

Again, getting everyone to agree to elect policy that helps the country as a whole, you are going to find mass separation of what that is -- yes, middle class income wage increase is popular, you didnt elect a party that was really going to provide that.

 

[all caps]

My idea of happiness and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is to cut the extra nonsense out of your life, have as little responsibility as possible, and have as much time as I want to do whatever I want. You dont have to be rich to do this. You dont have to live on the street either. But it seems most people's idea of this is being rich

 

[Jack V Savage]

The info i cited showed that 30% of the population supports the current US model. You brought up ignorance on their part of it and provided studies with a more specific question ( maybe, the study wasnt provided) My theory is historically 1/3 of the population will accept current distribution models.

Right. People will oppose change and don't really know something like that (shit, I'd have to look it up myself). But I'm saying if you're starting from scratch and asking what the ideal distribution is, that's very different. Very few if any would pick the current (even pre-tax change) distribution.

However, you are right that majority would not accept it and parties will pander to that group (earnestly of deceitfully) to obtain votes.

Again, getting everyone to agree to elect policy that helps the country as a whole, you are going to find mass separation of what that is -- yes, middle class income wage increase is popular, you didnt elect a party that was really going to provide that.

So we're more or less on the same page, right? Individuals who want to better their situation should work on it, but that's a different issue from ideal policy. And ideal policy in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Americans would result in a more-equal distribution of income and wealth in the country.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Right. People will oppose change and don't really know something like that (shit, I'd have to look it up myself). But I'm saying if you're starting from scratch and asking what the ideal distribution is, that's very different. Very few if any would pick the current (even pre-tax change) distribution.


So we're more or less on the same page, right? Individuals who want to better their situation should work on it, but that's a different issue from ideal policy. And ideal policy in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Americans would result in a more-equal distribution of income and wealth in the country.

If you are going from the abstract that we are starting a nation from ground zero, then yeah, public views would theoretically change in scope (although your link specifically mentioned no clear idea of what the policy would look like outside of what it was in 2005)

Im on the page that majority of x would want more equitable distribution -- im maintaining that what people view as ideal is widely different.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you are going from the abstract that we are starting a nation from ground zero, then yeah, public views would theoretically change in scope (although your link specifically mentioned no clear idea of what the policy would look like outside of what it was in 2005)

Im on the page that majority of x would want more equitable distribution -- im maintaining that what people view as ideal is widely different.

No question that there are differences, but virtually the entire range of the differences is to the left of what we currently have (and it's on track to get worse).