posted
Me? Yes...I guess...in that I believe in liberty. But I got to admit I'm a bit fed up with the 2%...not armed insurgency fed up...but I do own the tools.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Me? Yes...I guess...in that I believe in liberty. But I got to admit I'm a bit fed up with the 2%...not armed insurgency fed up...but I do own the tools.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As a registered libertarian I agree with the concept of legalizing prostitution.
And a registered one at that! This is actually a political stance you've taken numerous times here. I find it interesting you're advocating an outright socialist policy as a Libertarian.
Anyway, the "top 1%" or top 2% for that matter is a fairly arbitrary number, whereas I think it's somewhat more important to draw the line of *how* someone acquired that much wealth. this article goes into some of that as well as delineating between the lower top 1% (doctors, attorneys, small business owners) and the upper 1%, and the enormous difference in wealth that represents. It's not an even gradient, and becomes progressively less even as you go up.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
How oddly confrontational about that. I don't think I registered to vote this year, so I'm not a registered anything.
And anyway I know almost about the actual real life Libertarian party.
I will read the article, however when it does come time for torches & pitchforks I doubt that the people who are pulling folks from their mansions are going to stop for a quick chat about *how* you made your money.
And anyway I'm perty sore about how my wife single handedly ran her MD's office and while he got a new BMW yearly my wife almost never got a raise or was paid even appropriately considering how much work she put in and how much money that place pulled in.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How oddly confrontational about that. I don't think I registered to vote this year, so I'm not a registered anything.
Not meant to be confrontational, just a rather dramatic change in political philosophy.
quote:I will read the article, however when it does come time for torches & pitchforks I doubt that the people who are pulling folks from their mansions are going to stop for a quick chat about *how* you made your money.
I think if you did some reading you would be surprised by what a small fraction of people in the top 2% by wealth live in mansions. Or for that matter, how many people who aren't in that top 2% do live in mansions. Generally, egregious displays of luxury are for the extremely wealthy (top 0.1%) or the near-bankrupt. And more of the latter than the former, by the simple fact of percentages; most people who drive luxury cars and live in mansions are high income/low wealth individuals who blow most of their money on status symbols. They might fall into the top 50%, if indeed they even have positive wealth.
quote:And anyway I'm perty sore about how my wife single handedly ran her MD's office and while he got a new BMW yearly my wife almost never got a raise or was paid even appropriately considering how much work she put in and how much money that place pulled in.
If he's buying a new BMW yearly, then either he's making a lot more money than most doctors, or he almost assuredly isn't in the top 2%.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I will read the article, however when it does come time for torches & pitchforks I doubt that the people who are pulling folks from their mansions are going to stop for a quick chat about *how* you made your money.
To go a little more in depth here, for a good understanding of our current economic situation (where you've seen a very rapid increase in wealth amoung investment bankers and people in the financial service industry and a comparative drop in the middle class) it's absolutely crucial to understand how these people made their money. Mostly because how they made that money will greatly inform their lifestlye - i.e, whether you'll actually find them in said mansion or a suburban 3 bedroom house.
A vague sense of anger at the "top 2%" is misinformed because A: it's not a smooth delineation, as you break down the top 2% into smaller fragments wealth grows exponentially, B: almost all of the people who have worked to greatly change the balance of wealth towards the top 1 or 2% over the past 20 years are actually part of roughly the top 0.1-0.5%, and C: the majority of people living in mansions, driving luxury vehicles are not actually part of the top 2%, they merely spend most of their (large) salary on frivolous status symbols rather than saving or investing. Which is why they so frequently go bankrupt and lose their houses upon losing their job.
So let's get back to that top 2% and why it's important to know how they got there. You've got two people, both with a net worth of 1.5 million dollars. One, "Bob", is in his mid 60s and is a small business owner, doctor, lawyer, or some other skilled laborer, or just a middle class worker who's lived below his means and made smart investments. The other, "Joe", is in his early 30s and is an investment banker.
Most of Bob's wealth is in his retirement account that he has built for the past 40 years, and which at a 3-5% return will make him $45,000-$75,000 to live off of annually. Bob probably lives in a suburban house, drives a decent car, and vacations a few times a year.
Most of Joe's wealth, OTOH, was acquired over the past few years from capital gains and exploitative lending and investment practices.
So when you lump "the top 2%" into one group without looking at *how* the people in that group made their money, over how many years they made it, and where it's actually kept, you're basically lumping retirees and hedge fund managers into the same group.
We know, for example, that over the past 15 years the "Bobs" of the world have actually lost quite a bit of their wealth, both in actual dollar amounts and relative to the top 0.1%. Yet they remain in the top 2% (i.e, the top 6 million wealthiest Americans) simply because that's where they fall relative to the rest of the U.S, which is hurting just as much. (or worse) For example, in a world where increasingly large amounts of money are held by decreasingly fewer and fewer people, the "top 2%" might come to mean "the middle class." Right now the majority of the people in the top 2% are older upper middle class and retirees, and the majority of the wealth in the top 2% is held by a tiny fraction of that 2%.
So you see it becomes rather pointless to talk about the "top 2%" as if that represents any sort of cohesive group in terms of lifestyle, relative wealth, occupation, or the means by which they aquired that wealth. It's a statistical figure that's easy to quote but doesn't actually mean very much when you break it down. The questions that actually matter in this instance are "how?", "how much?", and "in what period of time?"
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also believe it'd be cheaper I imagine, particularly in terms of cost cutting to the bureaucracy, if instead of the various tax breaks and social assistance programs, if instead there was a minimum guaranteed income.
Lyrhawn has the right idea.
The main reason it won't happen though is because a large segment of America would gladly live in a cardboard box under an overpass eating gruel if it guaranteed blacks and hispanics had it worse.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The main reason it won't happen though is because a large segment of America would gladly live in a cardboard box under an overpass eating gruel if it guaranteed blacks and hispanics had it worse
Oh, God, what nonsense man. Even setting aside the question of whether a 'large segment' of America is so actively, vindictively racist this also insists that these same people will ignore their own comfort for the satisfaction racism brings them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe such people do exist...however I doubt they are prevalent enough to be considered a major stumbling block let alone "the main reason".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The main reason it won't happen though is because a large segment of America would gladly live in a cardboard box under an overpass eating gruel if it guaranteed blacks and hispanics had it worse
Oh, God, what nonsense man. Even setting aside the question of whether a 'large segment' of America is so actively, vindictively racist this also insists that these same people will ignore their own comfort for the satisfaction racism brings them.
The Southern Strategy.
quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
posted
Yes, I'm familiar with it. It doesn't match up with the statement I objected to if you'll note. And before you try to alter your original point further, I'm not talking about-nor were you-code words or indirect racism or so on and so forth. I'm talking about the notion that a 'large segment' of Americans *today* will endorse bad conditions for themselves in exchange for worse conditions for minoeities.
Racism isn't that cut and dried anymore and even when it was, I question how often materialism will lose out specifically in the name of racism.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Before you alter your original point further"
Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't give a shit about that, either. Baiting a bear doesn't work if the bear wears spectacles and is generally unflappable. Be a British bear, Blayne.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: "Before you alter your original point further"
Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
What I wanted to do was point out that you were moving the goalposts, which I did. You started off not even by saying that a 'large segment' of Americans would tolerate terrible standards of living so long as minorities had it worse, but that this same segment would do so 'gladly'. Which is plainly nonsense and hyperbole, which you could have simply admitted to. Even the most virulent racist isn't gladly going to live like a hobo just to be a racist. Then you shifted to the Southern strategy, which even that isn't what you started off with-'we're glad for bad, just make sure it's worse for them!'
I could've done the dance making sure not to upset you by pointing out you were saying something silly, but frankly after the cop stuff I wasn't feeling it. I don't want to fight with you, but if pointing out you were being ridiculous and shifty means you fight with me (and conveniently abandon the question about race politics), then go ahead and have a fight with me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, that's just part of the cost of dealing with Rakeesh. Either ignore the inflammatory shit & STAY ON TARGET or just answer other people who more skilled at the art of disagreeing with class (certainly not myself, Samp or DB either).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: just answer other people who more skilled at the art of disagreeing with class (certainly not myself, Samp or DB either).
I'm definitely interested in hearing why you think I'm unskilled at disagreeing with class.
Anyway, this present distraction aside, I really am interested in hearing your response to my earlier question.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i am very skilled at disagreeing with class. i also elect to not make it my universal modality. i also don't care about Chasing the Katharina, wherein someone's expectations to be responded to with 'class' are never worth even bothering to fulfill
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: "Before you alter your original point further"
Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
What I wanted to do was point out that you were moving the goalposts, which I did. You started off not even by saying that a 'large segment' of Americans would tolerate terrible standards of living so long as minorities had it worse, but that this same segment would do so 'gladly'. Which is plainly nonsense and hyperbole, which you could have simply admitted to. Even the most virulent racist isn't gladly going to live like a hobo just to be a racist. Then you shifted to the Southern strategy, which even that isn't what you started off with-'we're glad for bad, just make sure it's worse for them!'
I could've done the dance making sure not to upset you by pointing out you were saying something silly, but frankly after the cop stuff I wasn't feeling it. I don't want to fight with you, but if pointing out you were being ridiculous and shifty means you fight with me (and conveniently abandon the question about race politics), then go ahead and have a fight with me.
First, it seems like I overreacting, but, you don't at all realize that saying "Before you alter your original point further" would sound like to another person in the context of our recent conversation?
You accused me of changing the goal posts then, I apologized for not admitting I was wrong there, but now it seemed like you were just bringing it up again to be snide.
I'm sorry for overreacting but I want to make sure you understand that that is what it seems like.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're taking it entirely too personally, man. It was a shot, yes, I'm not asking that you accept it as though it wasn't, but it was only a shot because I felt you said something ridiculous (please note that since you've backed off from it, I'm not still trying to bludgeon you with it-I only mention it now because it's relecwnt to the current discussion).
But you replied as though I had said 'moved the goalposts and by the way, f*#k your mother!' I think we skipped a couple of levels is all I'm saying.
---- SW, you can pick a fight with me better than that! Elison made a much better attempt at it, and he didn't have your gift for passive aggression.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i am very skilled at disagreeing with class.
For the majority of my time as a Sergeant (read, all of last year) my job was to tell officers why they're wrong (and also stupid) while avoiding court martial. I'm like a disagreement ninja. A smooth blend of courtesy, tact, and professionalism with just a slight, indefinite aftertaste of condescension. It was glorious.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You had to do a lot of that in...Intel, right?
Between that, avoiding combat, and being a total bespectacled wussy-nerd, my days were pretty packed.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm thinking back to the way you reacted to that remark. You know, when you responded to the assertion that you were misusing the authority often granted to military and police in questions of firearms (on the basis of their experience and training in their use in dangerous situations) because you didn't actually *have* that experience even though you had exactly that experience...
Anyway, many or perhaps most people would probably use that sort of insult as an excuse to jump right down the throat of someone they supposedly disliked with some really sharp personal attacks about the accuser's military service and experience with firearms, about their memory, about their presumption, about insulting someone before finding out if they had their facts straight, so on and so forth...
Well, I just wanted to take the time to remark that your response of 'couch potato' was one of the finest examples of unclassy disagreement I've ever seen. 'Fair enough' though, right? Eh, right?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Change to "can be depended on" to disagree with class.
It would shorter to list the people who -do- belong on the list of those who fit that criteria on this site than who don't. And most of those don't post regularly anymore anyway.
Rakeesh...awww, that's sweet of you to think of me, but I just don't like you that way. It's okay Buddy! There are plenty of other people here you can poke into a frenzy.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I was a communicator. I worked with satellite antennas, radios, encryption devices, routers, switches, servers, collection gear, networking lots of stuff together, and generally Making Stuff Work. I did a lot of boring and nerdy stuff as well as occasionally doing cool and manly stuff. Most of the time I was bored, and usually very hot and uncomfortable when deployed. I worked with Intel guys and can't really say doing what, but less sitting in an air conditioned office writing reports and more sleeping on the ground and working in blistering hot conditions and hoping you don't get blown up than you might expect. Which isn't something I like talking about, for personal as well as OPSEC reasons, but apparently I can't make conditional statements about weaponry while in no way referencing my military service whatsoever without having my experience ridiculed out of the blue for apparently no reason.
But my response (not meant as a personal attack mind you, but a reference to "armchair general") continues to haunt me as an example of what a hateful and discourteous person I am.
In all seriousness, God knows I'm far from perfect, but I honestly can't remember having ever personally attacked (or even mentioned in anything but a positive manner) someone here about anything they've revealed about their personal lives, nor have I challenged (like Aros talking about how he would punch me if he met me in person), cursed, or berated them. I think that implies a certain level of class.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh...awww, that's sweet of you to think of me, but I just don't like you that way. It's okay Buddy! There are plenty of other people here you can poke into a frenzy.
posted
Anyway, can we get back to the topic we were discussing? I actually really do want to answer your question because I think we were going somewhere good, but I need you to define the terms you mentioned first.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How much of the 90% of owned is infrastructure vs wealth?
What exactly do you think the difference is between the two? And also, what do you mean by 90%?
posted
I'm sorry that my opinion that you are not the one I would count on to gently coax someone into changing their minds. I have seen you loose your shit more than twice. I was on the receiving end of some of that (not evev referring to couch potato comment).
Also I'm very suprised to still be hearing about the now infamous "intel" comment (not from Rakeesh) considering I sent you two emails of apology & exlanation and did not hear back, and made a public blanket apology. Perhaps you did not recive my emails?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm sorry that my opinion that you are not the one I would count on to gently coax someone into changing their minds. I have seen you loose your shit more than twice. I was on the receiving end of some of that (not evev referring to couch potato comment).
I am sorry I don't live up to your illustrious standards.
quote:Also I'm very suprised to still be hearing about the now infamous "intel" comment
Do you think that has anything to do with you randomly choosing to insult me earlier in this thread with apparently no provocation whatsoever? You basically popped into an argument between Elison and Rakeesh (in which I had no part) and said "oh yeah, btw, Dogbreath has no class."
What's mind boggling about this is the fact that you've developed a habit now of jumping into threads and making personal attacks against me, and then acting as if my defending myself, or even daring to disagree with what you say about me is somehow evidence of me being rude and attacking you.
Seriously, and I'm being completely earnest here, what did I ever do to you? I've tried very hard to be polite and kind and gracious to you, and yet you continue to take shots at me seemingly out of the blue. Why?
quote:(not from Rakeesh) considering I sent you two emails of apology & exlanation and did not hear back, and made a public blanket apology. Perhaps you did not recive my emails?
AFAIK I never gave you my e-mail address?
Also:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Anyway, can we get back to the topic we were discussing? I actually really do want to answer your question because I think we were going somewhere good, but I need you to define the terms you mentioned first.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How much of the 90% of owned is infrastructure vs wealth?
What exactly do you think the difference is between the two? And also, what do you mean by 90%?
posted
You have a public email in your hatrack profile...the little mail symbol in each post...I sent to jcopley@sbcglobal...
I'm waiting at the bus stop w a dying cell phone so please allow me to elaborate later on....
Please view our last major interaction before my prolonged absance where you make unfounded personal accusations.
Reguardless as to why I include you on my list (on which I included myself), my advice to Elison was to simply ignore back chatter OR avoid those who mouth off.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Please view our last major interaction before my prolonged absance where you make unfounded personal accusations.
What are you talking about?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry I don't have time to dig up past scuffles to justify my opinion (not snarky...just busy) If my opinion of you matters enough that you care to search you can...and if not it won't hurt my feelings.
Our past does not control our future & I do not count you as unreasonable nor unworthy of discussion nor an enemy.
As to your questions...90% was a rough estimate...I e $$$$...wealth...land...resources...whichever.
The difference between wealth & infrastructure in my mind...infrastructure is integral to continued progress, whereas wealth I associate with more liquid assets, art, excessivness & such.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh...awww, that's sweet of you to think of me, but I just don't like you that way. It's okay Buddy! There are plenty of other people here you can poke into a frenzy.
Not really.
If you have a critique perhaps you elaborate beyond "nu uh".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm sorry I don't have time to dig up past scuffles to justify my opinion (not snarky...just busy) If my opinion of you matters enough that you care to search you can...and if not it won't hurt my feelings.
Our past does not control our future & I do not count you as unreasonable nor unworthy of discussion nor an enemy.
So wait, you have the time to hold a grudge for several years and to launch personal attacks against me with absolutely no justification, and to treat me like absolute crap even after I tried to be kind to you, but now you can't be bothered to even tell me what this "unfounded personal accusation" I made that justifies your behavior towards me even is? I ask because I did search earlier (I was genuinely curious) and found nothing. This isn't me trying to win a fight or prove a point, either. I'm actually, legitimately concerned about this and why you feel I've wronged you.
But if you're not willing to tell me, then my request of you is that if it now suddenly means so little to you that you please stop holding whatever it was against me and stop being a jerk towards me every chance you get.
quote:As to your questions...90% was a rough estimate...I e $$$$...wealth...land...resources...whichever.
Do you mean percentage owned by the top 2% or...?
Right now the top 20% own about 85% of the wealth, so your estimate is off by about a factor of 10. That being said, those numbers are somewhat skewed in both directions: a large number of American households (especially those with members in their 20s and early 30s) have negative wealth. So if you and your wife have no debt and one dollar to your name, you're wealthier than 15 million American households. My wife and I have a net worth of around $30,000 (mostly my TSP retirement account) and are already in the top 60% of Americans by wealth - so getting into that top 20% isn't as difficult as it may appear.
OTOH, the dispersion of wealth becomes exponentially skewed to the right end of the graph starting around the 95th percentile, and advancing from the top 99% to top 99.5% for example requires multiplying your wealth many times over. But until then it's a fairly even curve.
quote:The difference between wealth & infrastructure in my mind...infrastructure is integral to continued progress, whereas wealth I associate with more liquid assets, art, excessivness & such.
That's a pretty unique definition. Wealth is defined regularly as "the abundance of valuable resources or valuable material possessions", which really encapsulates everything you mentioned and more. But it basically means any property or holding that has a monetary value. I think specifically what you're describing could better be called "luxury", not wealth. Items of luxury (BMWs, art, etc.) are a small fraction of wealth, and for good reason: they usually either depreciate and lose value, or require a lot of money to maintain and drain wealth rather than creating it. Even cash sitting in a bank account or under your bed depreciates and loses value due to inflation. Which is why I said your doctor friend is almost certainly not in the top 2%: like a lot of high income earners, he blows a ton of money on status symbols without actually increasing his wealth much. (since BMWs depreciate so quickly they're a huge drain) In fact, most people with a lot of luxury items are not particularly wealthy, and quite a few even have negative net worth that they finance with large incomes. It's not impossible that your wife might be wealthier than said doctor, depending on how jacked up his finances are. Then again, a peasant farmer in China is wealthier than millions of Americans in debt, so "wealth" isn't necessarily a good indication of quality of life.
Almost all of the wealth that's being discussed when you quote those figures *is* infrastructure as you call it: real estate, mines, power companies, farms, other natural resources, stocks and equity in companies, bonds, mutual funds (which buy shares in a lot of these things), retirement accounts, etc. While some of these things are owned outright, what usually happens is people buy shares of these resources (and these shares are given a certain monetary valuation, making them "wealth"), and then are theoretically paid that portion of the profits those resources generate. (dividends)
When we say Bill Gates is worth $80 billion dollars, we mean that he owns $80 billion dollars worth of stock in Microsoft. (or possibly other companies, I really don't know ) Presumably he could sell all of those shares and have $80 billion in cash... to do what with, exactly? Probably buy other assets or luxury items maybe. But anyway if you go by Bill Gates' actual liquid assets and luxury items, even if you include his giant house, he only has a tiny fraction of that. Because what's he going to do with $80 billion worth of BMWs, or paintings, or yachts, or even money in the bank? Might as well keep in invested where it continues to increase in value and make him more money every year.
posted
So what percentage of human wealth do the .5% own? You are saying these are the real bastards who crippling the economy, like one finger having a third of the body's blood?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So what percentage of human wealth do the .5% own? You are saying these are the real bastards who crippling the economy, like one finger having a third of the body's blood?
Actually, I think my point is that it doesn't really matter where they fall in the lineup or how much money they have. It has everything to do with how they make their money. There are billionaires who made their money ethically and run great companies that treat their employees very well. (like Amazon, for example) And there are millionaires and people making 6 figures who make their money by more or less screwing everyone else over, or even destabilizing the US economy to make a buck.
The point of that article is that it's now very difficult to get into the top .5% without being involved in investment banking and financial services and operating unethically, and that many of those people run business deals at that level like a good ol' boys club. People like movie stars, athletes, and entrepreneurs certainly do make it into that .5% as well, but they're a vanishingly small percentage of it.
But being part of that top .5% or top 1% or top 2% doesn't necessarily mean you're evil or unethical that you're crippling the economy. How you get there and how you use and grow your wealth once you're there is the deciding factor.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does this impact your frustration with the top 2%?
Actually, do you mind if I ask what the initial cause of that frustration was that has you fed up with them?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think a minimum guaranteed income could work if it was phased gradually rather than being an all-or-nothing deal like foodstamps is.
I have a relative who until recently received about $350 worth of foodstamps monthly for her family of 5. She recently finished her associates degree and started a new job that pays $16/hour, and while she's excited about her new career they're actually somewhat worse for wear financially since they're now just above the income level that would qualify them for foodstamps and also, I think, free childcare for her youngest son. (her other two kids are in school) They actually have less money comparatively due to the extra expenses they have to budget for, and have been having trouble making ends meet. She'll make most of it back with EITC, but she won't see that money until next year.
An interesting idea I saw proposed recently is to modify the EITC to essentially turn it into a guaranteed living wage. It would pay out monthly rather than yearly, and basically "cover" the gap between what you make and whatever the living wage is. I.e, if you're making the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour) and working full time, and the "living" wage is $25,000/year single (or $50,000/year for married without children. Each child would raise that number), then you'll receive a check for $833 every month to cover the $10,000 wage gap.
Another requirement would be that you work at least 30 hours a week, and I think the same age and tax stipulations that apply to insurance should also apply here: you have to be 26 or older or married and you can't be filed as a dependent on someone else's tax return. The disability system would remain in place for disabled persons, and the welfare program/unemployment would remain for those unemployed. I think there should also be some additional provisions for parents: if you're the primary care giver for children 5 and under, that should count as your full time job. If they're between 6 and 12, you should only have to work part time. (20 hours/week)
Not that I think this idea would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in the current congress (despite, I think, being proposed by a Republican congressman), but I think it would do a decent job of helping families smoothly transition off of state assistance as their incomes grow and careers advance. The transitory gap in wages between being poor enough for government assistance and rich enough to comfortably provide for your family is a very real thing, and since it can last for years it's extremely stressful for those families who experience it. I think a smooth transition could help bring a lot of people out of poverty.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I have a relative who until recently received about $350 worth of foodstamps monthly for her family of 5. She recently finished her associates degree and started a new job that pays $16/hour, and while she's excited about her new career they're actually somewhat worse for wear financially since they're now just above the income level that would qualify them for foodstamps and also, I think, free childcare for her youngest son. (her other two kids are in school) They actually have less money comparatively due to the extra expenses they have to budget for, and have been having trouble making ends meet. She'll make most of it back with EITC, but she won't see that money until next year.
I would love it if people talked more about the EITC and food stamps/family assistance being transformed into the guaranteed minimum income (GMI). They are talking about it in Britain, for example, and some analysis shows that just the savings on administrative costs for these programs would justify the extra payouts.
Essentially, you just turn all federal assistance programs into cash. And the EITC is replaced by a scale that gradually diminishes as earned income rises. Anyone not employed and not receiving unemployment receives the GMI, and it increases as they earn money, and decreases as they pass a certain threshold.
quote: Another requirement would be that you work at least 30 hours a week, and I think the same age and tax stipulations that apply to insurance should also apply here: you have to be 26 or older or married and you can't be filed as a dependent on someone else's tax return. The disability system would remain in place for disabled persons, and the welfare program/unemployment would remain for those unemployed. I think there should also be some additional provisions for parents: if you're the primary care giver for children 5 and under, that should count as your full time job. If they're between 6 and 12, you should only have to work part time. (20 hours/week)
That is one possibility. Another approach would be to also use the GMI to replace social security as well. The administrative burdens would be much lower if everyone received a guaranteed minimum, rather than a scaled income according to contributions.
quote: Not that I think this idea would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in the current congress (despite, I think, being proposed by a Republican congressman), but I think it would do a decent job of helping families smoothly transition off of state assistance as their incomes grow and careers advance. The transitory gap in wages between being poor enough for government assistance and rich enough to comfortably provide for your family is a very real thing, and since it can last for years it's extremely stressful for those families who experience it. I think a smooth transition could help bring a lot of people out of poverty.
It was tested in Canada in the 1970s. The really interesting stuff is the effects it would have on entrepreneurism, public health, and child welfare. Some theorize that it would drastically improve public health and lower the suicide and alcoholism rates as well. Would be fascinating to try.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if in 10 years or so after the political fallout from the ACA implementation blows over if this might be the next major domestic issue being debated. With inequality levels rising at a steady rate since the end of the 90s, effectively ending abject poverty via a GMI might be necessary (or at least prudent and beneficial) to maintain social and economic stability.
Other than the effects you mention I'd be curious about the effects it would have on drug use, theft, and murder rates as well as incarceration rates. These seem to be tied to desperate and impoverished people.
I'm actually worrried more about the bureaucratic overhead. As you mentioned, it's entirely possible to merge social security and disability payments into a GMI and reduce paperwork and accounting to a point where it might actually save us money. In practice, though, getting the government to cut bureaucracy (even when it's logical, expedient, and easy to do) is like pulling teeth, while they're frighteningly good at creating new bureaucracy. I've met and worked with a good deal of GS's, and there's been more than one occassion where I've noticed someone held a job that was completely redundant, but stayed in it because terminating the position was more trouble than it's worth.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're taking it entirely too personally, man. It was a shot, yes, I'm not asking that you accept it as though it wasn't, but it was only a shot because I felt you said something ridiculous (please note that since you've backed off from it, I'm not still trying to bludgeon you with it-I only mention it now because it's relecwnt to the current discussion).
But you replied as though I had said 'moved the goalposts and by the way, f*#k your mother!' I think we skipped a couple of levels is all I'm saying.
---- SW, you can pick a fight with me better than that! Elison made a much better attempt at it, and he didn't have your gift for passive aggression.
I don't believe in half-measures, and I accept the compliment.
I also had some time to sleep on it while focusing on my work and I'll concede out of the argument this time as I definately don't like the way I entered into it or reacted to you, once again sorry.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
