Wealth Redistribution

[expat_panama]

...Hardly anything worthwhile ever gets done by a committee.

Donno, individuals are good and committees are good, but for different things. Running governments is done soooo much better by committees than by strongmen. Most books are written by single authors but the the most widely published and sold book is the Bible (committee compiled /w many writers).

 

[expat_panama]

...It's a pretty safe guess that a large portion of the increase in Net Worth is home equity...

No guesses are 'safe' when it comes to whether your account balance can cover the check you're writing. When it comes to money we need to know as much as possible, and what we know is that over the past couple years average home prices fell while average household wealth rose.

...a balance of approx. $500K of net worth is far from being RICH....

For crying out loud, you're saying a family with a half million in the bank ain't rich?

Jeesh, some people would complain if you hanged them with a new rope even.

 

[logical4u]

It appears that you "only" want to focus on the wealthy, after their wealth is substantial. You do not mention personal sacrifice: when those that are not wealthy were running the streets and clubs, working a job to give them enough money to party, those "wealthy" people were working low-paying jobs that would walk them into a future or going to school, and going easy on the party scene. When the decision to marry came along, it was not who will 'give me _______', it was I am willing to sacrifice my personal happiness to make this person that I chose, happy. When children came, it was not: I want to be my child's BFF, it was, what do I need to do, to make this life, this gift, into a great person. When the children were older it was not: let me buy toys for me (so I can share them with the children), it was, let me save and plan for my future so my children will not be burdened with a 'dead-end' parent at a time they will need their resources for their own families.
After years of sacrifice (and yes, most people that do this are extremely satisfied with their lives, because their lives are not selfish and superficial), the person/couple is wealthy. The one(s) that 'blew' their resources and wealth to live above 'their income', now demand that the wealth is distributed equally. It was, they, that made bad investments, while others made good investments. At any time in most peoples' lives they can choose to do the right thing, many, don't ever choose to do the right thing and are unwilling to reap what they have sown. There is no shortcut. The only way to happiness (and wealth) is by steadily working towards your goals. Most of those that are 'gifted' wealth (inheritance/winnings), that had no money, previously, will soon 'waste' the 'gift'. Like their lives, their resources are focused on things with little or no return value. It is something that cannot be legislated or changed by anyone but the individual.

This may sound odd but my focus is not on the wealthy, my focus is on the idea of wealth distribution that is noted in the OP opening line, and the prevalence of this idea as an apology for the status quo and even as an excuse for greed.

Exceptions do not prove the rule. Your example could be lots of people but they are hardly wealthy, wealth is the top 2 or 3% even 5% but few reach that plateau and most who are in this category started in the upper middle classes and usually inherited the means to wealth. Class statistics confirm the lack of mobility. The only major exception is sports or talent figures who can go from poverty to wealth.

The idea I counter in these debates is 'Marxism on the right' as one conservative said it. Randians are contemporary American Marxists, as are most libertarians, they worship a material (individualistic) idea over the complexity of life and especially economic life in a global world economy. They are one dimensional, the replies I get demonstrate that if anyone needs proof, most are interchangeable.

In the end the proof is in the pudding, our best years (for most but not all) in America were after WWII till Reagan and others started the destruction of worker rights, and corporations put profit ahead of people.

The basic thrust of this thread seems to be that wealthy people are immoral because they attained wealth by illegal or exploitive means. Or by luck, in some fashion winning the lottery or inheriting wealth and vast estates. All of which may be true to some extent, there are boatloads of people in every walk of life and income level who have gotten where they are without really earning it. I don't think it's fair to focus on just the ones who made it up to millionaire status, ANYBODY who uses unfair practices to advance their own situation deserves censure. And prosecution....

Basic thrust is bad ideas not the wealthy - many think we are wealthy - while I could nitpick a few parts I agree with you in this reply. You seem able to see both sides. I said at the beginning I don't see 'wealth redistribution' except as subterfuge.



I guess I have to take that back, you obviously are replying and obviously unconscious.

Please write your own thoughts and questions if you want another reply. I know what I wrote, I don't need to see it again. Simple questions required as thread is growing and I'm out busy creating wealth.

Midcan't refuses to recognize that his "society" strawman wouldn't exist in the absence of consenting adults, freely exchanging perceived value for perceived value.

Jeez I'm impressed more than a five word reply, you're definitely learning. Great, but your first sentence proves my point. Read it again and see if see what I mean by that. Could that just be.....

Individuals can only create wealth in a group.

Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put that they're worth repeating.

Don't confuse them!

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine

"This may sound odd but my focus is not on the wealthy, my focus is on the idea of wealth distribution ...."
Where is the wealth? Who has the wealth? Isn't it convenient for you to claim that you are not interested in the individual (just their property)? This is what IMHO is called: intellectual dishonesty.
If there is nothing but raw materials and a person works for years making beautiful things, those things are wealth. They might not have a lot of "value", but the things are wealth. Once other people come into the picture that "value" can change. The furniture, chests, preserved food, jewelry, etc will have an agreed price (monetary replaces items for bartering because of its ease in exchange), where there is a win-win situation.

The other people could use the same methods to make similar items for "wealth". Your description has them coming in at a much later date and claiming that person's "wealth, because the trees could have been used by anyone, but they didn't use them, so they should be "paid" for their "share" of the trees (okay, give them one single grape). It encourages imorality and corruption (who sets the values if not agreed for the sale? what is the cost of the person setting the "value"?). Once that "legal stealing" is introduced, it will discourage "real" wealth developement, and encourage "artificial services" (required by government, but contributes nothing to actual "wealth"). It is hard to stick your hand out when you are using it for labor (wealth building).

 

[boedicca]

Ironically, ants are communists....

Just Sayin'

That's not Ironic; it's LOGICAL.

Nonetheless, Aesop would approve.

Sarcasm is wasted on Some People.

In reality, Ants are just big families. There is One Big Mama, and a bunch of siblings. If anything, Ants represent Family Responsibility and Loyalty as a successful model.

 

[Foxfyre]

...It's a pretty safe guess that a large portion of the increase in Net Worth is home equity...

No guesses are 'safe' when it comes to whether your account balance can cover the check you're writing. When it comes to money we need to know as much as possible, and what we know is that over the past couple years average home prices fell while average household wealth rose.

...a balance of approx. $500K of net worth is far from being RICH....

For crying out loud, you're saying a family with a half million in the bank ain't rich?

Jeesh, some people would complain if you hanged them with a new rope even.

Wealth is measured by far more variables than just money in the bank. In the grand scheme of things, if you look at the world's poorest poor, even America's poorest poor are 'rich' by comparison. So even the term 'rich' itself is relative.

A family planning to go into business for themselves could very well have $500k in the bank as seed money in advance of that. And those saving for a comfortable retirement are well advised to have $500k or preferably more laid back to support them once they give up their paying jobs.

 

[expat_panama]

...Wealth is measured by far more variables than just money in the bank...

You can define 'wealth' to mean anything you want. Some people define it as having material goods, some by having spiritual goods, we even got a guy here saying it ain't wealth if more than 2% of the population have just as much. The problem is there's no way people can communicate when each conversant changes definitions of 'wealth' in mid sentence any way it suits 'em. Words have to mean things.

One option is we agree on a common definition, like what we did in post #48 when we considered--

--one from Collins English Dictionary:

wealth [wɛlθ] n

1. (Economics) a large amount of money and valuable material possessions
2. (Economics) the state of being rich
3. a great profusion a wealth of gifts
4. (Economics) all goods and services with monetary, exchangeable, or productive value​

The other option is that each poster announces how he's currently tailoring the term to fit his latest rant, and then he allows others the same free reign to wreak havoc on the language.

Personally the first options seems a bit more well, sane.

 

[Publius1787]

Wow! Just wow! Reading this thread gives me a headache. Any more enlightenment and discovery that yall want to anounce to the world? Its funny really. But good for you. I suppose your learning alittle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because words mean things. Sure, it's ok if you talk to yourself (though it's unhealthy if you get mad at yourself when you lose arguments and start hitting). We have to agree on a definition if we're talking together so what say we use one from Collins English Dictionary:

This is going to be fun.

wealth [wɛlθ] n

1. (Economics) a large amount of money and valuable material possessions
2. (Economics) the state of being rich
3. a great profusion a wealth of gifts
4. (Economics) Economics all goods and services with monetary, exchangeable, or productive value​

'Exchange' requires more than one person. Individuals can only create wealth in a group. OK, you can have 'spiritual wealth' all by yourself but let's try and stick with one definition here.

Yes, exchange does require more than one person, but that does not mean that you have to exchange it for wealth to increase. One of the largest complaints that the left has is that some people are sitting on their wealth, ie. not exchanging it. Does that negate the value of that wealth? Does it disappear if they refuse to exchange it?

Regardless, what does this have to do with wealth being a concept, which is what I stated, and you took exception to.

--and it only matters because we are moral, so now let's list our shared values --America's core values found on our money:

In God We Trust (aka do good or do what's right)
Liberty (not animal-like anarchy but human freedom to do Good)
E Pluribus Unum (aka unity through diversity)
​

The State is needed to provide and guard an environment where businesses can prosper and support the State. Each needs the other. In order to prosper we also need both a diversity of wealth and the elimination the extremes of wealth and poverty --because extremes polarize and restrict both freedom and wealth creation.

Why do we need to eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty? If everyone has exactly the same amount of money, which is the only way to accomplish the elimination of the extremes, what benefit accrues to society as a whole?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.


Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put that they're worth repeating.

Prove it.

 

[Publius1787]

Because words mean things. Sure, it's ok if you talk to yourself (though it's unhealthy if you get mad at yourself when you lose arguments and start hitting). We have to agree on a definition if we're talking together so what say we use one from Collins English Dictionary:

This is going to be fun.

wealth [wɛlθ] n

1. (Economics) a large amount of money and valuable material possessions
2. (Economics) the state of being rich
3. a great profusion a wealth of gifts
4. (Economics) Economics all goods and services with monetary, exchangeable, or productive value​

'Exchange' requires more than one person. Individuals can only create wealth in a group. OK, you can have 'spiritual wealth' all by yourself but let's try and stick with one definition here.

Yes, exchange does require more than one person, but that does not mean that you have to exchange it for wealth to increase. One of the largest complaints that the left has is that some people are sitting on their wealth, ie. not exchanging it. Does that negate the value of that wealth? Does it disappear if they refuse to exchange it?

Regardless, what does this have to do with wealth being a concept, which is what I stated, and you took exception to.

--and it only matters because we are moral, so now let's list our shared values --America's core values found on our money:

In God We Trust (aka do good or do what's right)
Liberty (not animal-like anarchy but human freedom to do Good)
E Pluribus Unum (aka unity through diversity)
​

The State is needed to provide and guard an environment where businesses can prosper and support the State. Each needs the other. In order to prosper we also need both a diversity of wealth and the elimination the extremes of wealth and poverty --because extremes polarize and restrict both freedom and wealth creation.

Why do we need to eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty? If everyone has exactly the same amount of money, which is the only way to accomplish the elimination of the extremes, what benefit accrues to society as a whole?

I think this is what your looking for.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJBeuR0xEP8]YouTube - ‪Friedman and Sowell on Equality‬‏[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess I have to take that back, you obviously are replying and obviously unconscious.

Please write your own thoughts and questions if you want another reply. I know what I wrote, I don't need to see it again. Simple questions required as thread is growing and I'm out busy creating wealth.

You wrote that rights come from being conscious, and insisted that animals, because they are conscious, also have rights. I pointed out the absurdity of that position, and you reply with an ad hominen attack.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[kiwiman127]

...It's a pretty safe guess that a large portion of the increase in Net Worth is home equity...

No guesses are 'safe' when it comes to whether your account balance can cover the check you're writing. When it comes to money we need to know as much as possible, and what we know is that over the past couple years average home prices fell while average household wealth rose.

...a balance of approx. $500K of net worth is far from being RICH....

For crying out loud, you're saying a family with a half million in the bank ain't rich?

Jeesh, some people would complain if you hanged them with a new rope even.

I think the growth in household wealth increased via the wealth accumulated by the true investor class.

"The U.S. central bank’s latest Flow of Funds snapshot shows that household wealth grew by 2.2 percent, or $1.2 trillion, during the July to September timeframe. With the quarterly increase, household net worth-the difference between the value of assets and liabilities-was an estimated $54.9 trillion at the end of the third quarter, as gains in stock markets offset losses in the housing sector"
Household Wealth Increases Despite Heavy Real Estate Losses

 

[midcan5]

Logical4u,

You wrote, "This country saw the fastest rise in the middle class in the mid 1900s, why?" I have never read that in any history, the period after WWII was according to most historians our greatest period of equality and growth of the middle class. Unions were strong and the great depression created an attitude that changed people's moral innards. We were all in it together unlike today. Consider this quote from the best history book I have read recently. In the mid fifties, "generosity was voted the most conspicuous American characteristic, followed by friendliness, understanding, piety, love of freedom, and progressivism. The American faults listed were petty: shallowness, egotism, extravagance, preoccupation with money, and selfishness."(1) Today those values are reversed.

It was work laws, regulation, unions, and the failures of capitalism that created our best years. Look what happened in Germany and Russia under similar circumstances if you doubt that.

You all (each person who has replied) are adding your psychological and personal worldview and assigning them to me when you think them negative. I am not an envious person, that concept is something I do not know. Envy has no part in my points. You can accuse me of excessive empathy if you like. Your opinion of humankind shown in your examples strikes me as naive. People are the same in all classes and educational levels, some are good some are bad some lazy some hard workers. I have been a boss for a long time. The difference often is the supporting structure of family and income. The proliferation of tattoos amazes me today but I'd hardly judge people based on that aspect of their personality. I see it as an attempt to display and say I'm me.

You're too orderly for life lol, if you live long enough that attitude may change. Going to college is a step up and a help, doesn't guarantee success, but it sure as heck is better than not going. Funny but a few people I know who are in the top 2% in earning have no college at all, making money doesn't always mean college.

PS there is no need to quote me in replies, I like when people can order their thoughts and not just nitpick. Let's face you guys are not going to change me, I am an old dog who has seen and experienced too much already. Life is a great teacher even when the bills are high. But I still appreciate a sound argument.


(1)William Manchester in "The Glory and the Dream" quoting George Gallup's Institute of public opinion.

I posted 2 10 minute videos That clarifies an ALLREADY explained previous comment. You throw articles at me in leu of your own absence of a credible reply to which you ignored most of what I posted. Do yourself a favor. Never go to college. Such intelectual lazyness will result in failure. However, if you have been to college demand your money back! Basically what your telling me is that "I cant explain my position myself so I just post articles and let other people do my arguing for me." And when anyone rebuts your claims you just post another article. Thats intellectual lazyness.

And so did I, so where do you get off criticizing another. The Haidt piece is 20 minutes so since I listened to yours demonstrate you aren't ideologically lazy and listen to one of them. My prior posts covered your other questions and the others asked similar questions that I already answered. College! Been there done that, and lots lots more. If you have a specific winning argument and/or question let's have it.


Expat_panama,

you're too mellow for these debates - that's a positive. I agree wealth has grown but if you check the stats they have grown mostly at the top. I had a thread that covered that item but was removed because it contained too many quotes from others. I can't for the life of me figure out how we know anything if we don't open our eyes and read all. I'll see if I can condense the info and repost some of it or maybe find other debates on USMB where the same topics are discussed. Seems we are always doing the same dance.



Please ignore this if you like, I saw it today and thought it relevant. Reading online is considered by some in this thread to be dishonest or to constitute intellectual laziness. Odd you say, I agree.

McKibben's main thesis: "Growth is no longer making most people wealthier, but instead is generating inequality and insecurity."
'Deep Economy': ideas for a better world / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

 

[logical4u]

Logical4u,

You wrote, "This country saw the fastest rise in the middle class in the mid 1900s, why?" I have never read that in any history, the period after WWII was according to most historians our greatest period of equality and growth of the middle class. Unions were strong and the great depression created an attitude that changed people's moral innards. We were all in it together unlike today. Consider this quote from the best history book I have read recently. In the mid fifties, "generosity was voted the most conspicuous American characteristic, followed by friendliness, understanding, piety, love of freedom, and progressivism. The American faults listed were petty: shallowness, egotism, extravagance, preoccupation with money, and selfishness."(1) Today those values are reversed.

It was work laws, regulation, unions, and the failures of capitalism that created our best years. Look what happened in Germany and Russia under similar circumstances if you doubt that.

You all (each person who has replied) are adding your psychological and personal worldview and assigning them to me when you think them negative. I am not an envious person, that concept is something I do not know. Envy has no part in my points. You can accuse me of excessive empathy if you like. Your opinion of humankind shown in your examples strikes me as naive. People are the same in all classes and educational levels, some are good some are bad some lazy some hard workers. I have been a boss for a long time. The difference often is the supporting structure of family and income. The proliferation of tattoos amazes me today but I'd hardly judge people based on that aspect of their personality. I see it as an attempt to display and say I'm me.

You're too orderly for life lol, if you live long enough that attitude may change. Going to college is a step up and a help, doesn't guarantee success, but it sure as heck is better than not going. Funny but a few people I know who are in the top 2% in earning have no college at all, making money doesn't always mean college.

PS there is no need to quote me in replies, I like when people can order their thoughts and not just nitpick. Let's face you guys are not going to change me, I am an old dog who has seen and experienced too much already. Life is a great teacher even when the bills are high. But I still appreciate a sound argument.


(1)William Manchester in "The Glory and the Dream" quoting George Gallup's Institute of public opinion.

I posted 2 10 minute videos That clarifies an ALLREADY explained previous comment. You throw articles at me in leu of your own absence of a credible reply to which you ignored most of what I posted. Do yourself a favor. Never go to college. Such intelectual lazyness will result in failure. However, if you have been to college demand your money back! Basically what your telling me is that "I cant explain my position myself so I just post articles and let other people do my arguing for me." And when anyone rebuts your claims you just post another article. Thats intellectual lazyness.

And so did I, so where do you get off criticizing another. The Haidt piece is 20 minutes so since I listened to yours demonstrate you aren't ideologically lazy and listen to one of them. My prior posts covered your other questions and the others asked similar questions that I already answered. College! Been there done that, and lots lots more. If you have a specific winning argument and/or question let's have it.


Expat_panama,

you're too mellow for these debates - that's a positive. I agree wealth has grown but if you check the stats they have grown mostly at the top. I had a thread that covered that item but was removed because it contained too many quotes from others. I can't for the life of me figure out how we know anything if we don't open our eyes and read all. I'll see if I can condense the info and repost some of it or maybe find other debates on USMB where the same topics are discussed. Seems we are always doing the same dance.



Please ignore this if you like, I saw it today and thought it relevant. Reading online is considered by some in this thread to be dishonest or to constitute intellectual laziness. Odd you say, I agree.

McKibben's main thesis: "Growth is no longer making most people wealthier, but instead is generating inequality and insecurity."
'Deep Economy': ideas for a better world / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Maybe people were 'so' generous in the '50s because they were not being taxed to pay other people to sit at home? At what point does 'empathy' turn to 'doormat'? Sorry, I spent my time there and have no desire to be deceived by those that use others and then kiss their bottoms so they can continue use them. Being generous to "those" people brings nothing but grief; it doesn't help them. They just become that plant in the little shop of horror!

 

[boedicca]

...It's a pretty safe guess that a large portion of the increase in Net Worth is home equity...

No guesses are 'safe' when it comes to whether your account balance can cover the check you're writing. When it comes to money we need to know as much as possible, and what we know is that over the past couple years average home prices fell while average household wealth rose.

...a balance of approx. $500K of net worth is far from being RICH....

For crying out loud, you're saying a family with a half million in the bank ain't rich?

Jeesh, some people would complain if you hanged them with a new rope even.

That is correct. $500K (especially if it is held in a somewhat illiquid asset such as a house) is not Rich. What type of income would this capital generate? At the high end $50K per year if the person an incredibly skilled and knowledgeable investor. In reality, the range is probably $10K-20K. Is that an income level you think of as Rich? I don't.

And getting back to the nature of that net worth. If it is largely the equity in a home, the property taxes, insurance and other costs of maintaining that home are likely exceeding any increase in appreciation in the current housing market. If anything, the net worth is depreciating.

 

[boedicca]

As a follow up to my post about $500K not being Rich, I'm adding some thoughts on the bogosity of how Wealth Distribution is calculated.

We see in the news from time to time the appalling stories of public employees retiring with mid six figure pensions. While these are outliers, they do raise an issue regarding the wealth of people holding such annuities. The Net Present Value of a public employee retiree's life time pension and health insurance can easily exceed $1M, yet that is not included in Wealth Distribution.

We are told such pensions are SACROSANCT CONTRACTS, so why aren't these amounts properly included? If we're going to dwell on Wealth Distribution, we should be honest about these obligations.

 

[kiwiman127]

Logical4u,

You wrote, "This country saw the fastest rise in the middle class in the mid 1900s, why?" I have never read that in any history, the period after WWII was according to most historians our greatest period of equality and growth of the middle class. Unions were strong and the great depression created an attitude that changed people's moral innards. We were all in it together unlike today. Consider this quote from the best history book I have read recently. In the mid fifties, "generosity was voted the most conspicuous American characteristic, followed by friendliness, understanding, piety, love of freedom, and progressivism. The American faults listed were petty: shallowness, egotism, extravagance, preoccupation with money, and selfishness."(1) Today those values are reversed.

It was work laws, regulation, unions, and the failures of capitalism that created our best years. Look what happened in Germany and Russia under similar circumstances if you doubt that.

You all (each person who has replied) are adding your psychological and personal worldview and assigning them to me when you think them negative. I am not an envious person, that concept is something I do not know. Envy has no part in my points. You can accuse me of excessive empathy if you like. Your opinion of humankind shown in your examples strikes me as naive. People are the same in all classes and educational levels, some are good some are bad some lazy some hard workers. I have been a boss for a long time. The difference often is the supporting structure of family and income. The proliferation of tattoos amazes me today but I'd hardly judge people based on that aspect of their personality. I see it as an attempt to display and say I'm me.

You're too orderly for life lol, if you live long enough that attitude may change. Going to college is a step up and a help, doesn't guarantee success, but it sure as heck is better than not going. Funny but a few people I know who are in the top 2% in earning have no college at all, making money doesn't always mean college.

PS there is no need to quote me in replies, I like when people can order their thoughts and not just nitpick. Let's face you guys are not going to change me, I am an old dog who has seen and experienced too much already. Life is a great teacher even when the bills are high. But I still appreciate a sound argument.


(1)William Manchester in "The Glory and the Dream" quoting George Gallup's Institute of public opinion.

I posted 2 10 minute videos That clarifies an ALLREADY explained previous comment. You throw articles at me in leu of your own absence of a credible reply to which you ignored most of what I posted. Do yourself a favor. Never go to college. Such intelectual lazyness will result in failure. However, if you have been to college demand your money back! Basically what your telling me is that "I cant explain my position myself so I just post articles and let other people do my arguing for me." And when anyone rebuts your claims you just post another article. Thats intellectual lazyness.

And so did I, so where do you get off criticizing another. The Haidt piece is 20 minutes so since I listened to yours demonstrate you aren't ideologically lazy and listen to one of them. My prior posts covered your other questions and the others asked similar questions that I already answered. College! Been there done that, and lots lots more. If you have a specific winning argument and/or question let's have it.


Expat_panama,

you're too mellow for these debates - that's a positive. I agree wealth has grown but if you check the stats they have grown mostly at the top. I had a thread that covered that item but was removed because it contained too many quotes from others. I can't for the life of me figure out how we know anything if we don't open our eyes and read all. I'll see if I can condense the info and repost some of it or maybe find other debates on USMB where the same topics are discussed. Seems we are always doing the same dance.



Please ignore this if you like, I saw it today and thought it relevant. Reading online is considered by some in this thread to be dishonest or to constitute intellectual laziness. Odd you say, I agree.

McKibben's main thesis: "Growth is no longer making most people wealthier, but instead is generating inequality and insecurity."
'Deep Economy': ideas for a better world / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Maybe people were 'so' generous in the '50s because they were not being taxed to pay other people to sit at home? At what point does 'empathy' turn to 'doormat'? Sorry, I spent my time there and have no desire to be deceived by those that use others and then kiss their bottoms so they can continue use them. Being generous to "those" people brings nothing but grief; it doesn't help them. They just become that plant in the little shop of horror!

But there was programs in the 50's that taxed people so unemployed people could at least have something coming in. I think you had better try an avenue that you might have some kind of clue about.
In the 50's wage earners actually saw their income grow more than inflation. That hasn't been true for the last 30 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

Logical4u,

You wrote, "This country saw the fastest rise in the middle class in the mid 1900s, why?" I have never read that in any history, the period after WWII was according to most historians our greatest period of equality and growth of the middle class. Unions were strong and the great depression created an attitude that changed people's moral innards. We were all in it together unlike today. Consider this quote from the best history book I have read recently. In the mid fifties, "generosity was voted the most conspicuous American characteristic, followed by friendliness, understanding, piety, love of freedom, and progressivism. The American faults listed were petty: shallowness, egotism, extravagance, preoccupation with money, and selfishness."(1) Today those values are reversed.

It was work laws, regulation, unions, and the failures of capitalism that created our best years. Look what happened in Germany and Russia under similar circumstances if you doubt that.

You all (each person who has replied) are adding your psychological and personal worldview and assigning them to me when you think them negative. I am not an envious person, that concept is something I do not know. Envy has no part in my points. You can accuse me of excessive empathy if you like. Your opinion of humankind shown in your examples strikes me as naive. People are the same in all classes and educational levels, some are good some are bad some lazy some hard workers. I have been a boss for a long time. The difference often is the supporting structure of family and income. The proliferation of tattoos amazes me today but I'd hardly judge people based on that aspect of their personality. I see it as an attempt to display and say I'm me.

You're too orderly for life lol, if you live long enough that attitude may change. Going to college is a step up and a help, doesn't guarantee success, but it sure as heck is better than not going. Funny but a few people I know who are in the top 2% in earning have no college at all, making money doesn't always mean college.

PS there is no need to quote me in replies, I like when people can order their thoughts and not just nitpick. Let's face you guys are not going to change me, I am an old dog who has seen and experienced too much already. Life is a great teacher even when the bills are high. But I still appreciate a sound argument.


(1)William Manchester in "The Glory and the Dream" quoting George Gallup's Institute of public opinion.




And so did I, so where do you get off criticizing another. The Haidt piece is 20 minutes so since I listened to yours demonstrate you aren't ideologically lazy and listen to one of them. My prior posts covered your other questions and the others asked similar questions that I already answered. College! Been there done that, and lots lots more. If you have a specific winning argument and/or question let's have it.


Expat_panama,

you're too mellow for these debates - that's a positive. I agree wealth has grown but if you check the stats they have grown mostly at the top. I had a thread that covered that item but was removed because it contained too many quotes from others. I can't for the life of me figure out how we know anything if we don't open our eyes and read all. I'll see if I can condense the info and repost some of it or maybe find other debates on USMB where the same topics are discussed. Seems we are always doing the same dance.



Please ignore this if you like, I saw it today and thought it relevant. Reading online is considered by some in this thread to be dishonest or to constitute intellectual laziness. Odd you say, I agree.

McKibben's main thesis: "Growth is no longer making most people wealthier, but instead is generating inequality and insecurity."
'Deep Economy': ideas for a better world / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Maybe people were 'so' generous in the '50s because they were not being taxed to pay other people to sit at home? At what point does 'empathy' turn to 'doormat'? Sorry, I spent my time there and have no desire to be deceived by those that use others and then kiss their bottoms so they can continue use them. Being generous to "those" people brings nothing but grief; it doesn't help them. They just become that plant in the little shop of horror!

But there was programs in the 50's that taxed people so unemployed people could at least have something coming in. I think you had better try an avenue that you might have some kind of clue about.
In the 50's wage earners actually saw their income more than inflation. That hasn't been true for the last 30 years.

Are you sure about that?

Money and Inflation 1950's
To provide an estimate of inflation we have given a guide to the value of $100 US Dollars for the first year in the decade to the equivalent in today's money
If you have $100 Converted from 1950 to 2005 it would be equivalent to $835.41 today

In 1950 a new house cost $8,450.00 and by 1959 was $12,400.00 More House Prices

In 1950 the average income per year was $3,210.00 and by 1959 was $5,010.00

In 1950 a gallon of gas was 18 cents and by 1959 was 25 cents

In 1950 the average cost of new car was $1,510.00 and by 1959 was $2,200.00 More Cars and Car Prices
1950s history including Popular Culture, Prices, Events, Technology and Inventions

And it would appear that wages were struggling to keep pace then as they are now:

In 1950 the average income per year was $3,210.00 and by 1959 was $5,010.00
source: 1950s history including Popular Culture, Prices, Events, Technology and Inventions

In the late 70's we had double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, AND high unemployment along with flat wages and THAT was painful. Even though compared to the Clinton years and Bush years, the Reagan economy looked worse in some respects, compared to what we were struggling with in the 70's made Reagan's economic policies look brilliant.

Because the Clinton economy ended on a high note with a balanced budget, people forgot about the terrible scare and scrambling to save assets when the dot.com bubble burst just a few years earlier.

The only reason many people are tolerating Obama's miserable economic record so far is because they are comparing it to the last six months of the Bush administration when the housing bubble collapsed.

The reason inflation hurts so much right now is that incomes have been so flat or non existent with high unemployment:

Monday, March 28, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Inflation spooked the nation in the early 1980s. It surged and kept rising until it topped 13 percent.

These days, inflation is much lower. Yet to many Americans, it feels worse now. And for a good reason: Their income has been even flatter than inflation.

Back in the ’80s, the money people made typically more than made up for high inflation. In 1981, banks would pay nearly 16 percent on a six-month CD. And workers typically got pay raises to match their higher living costs.

No more.

Over the 12 months that ended in February, consumer prices increased just 2.1 percent. Yet wages for many people have risen even less — if they’re not actually frozen.

Social Security recipients have gone two straight years with no increase in benefits. Money market rates? You need a magnifying glass to find them.

That’s why even moderate inflation hurts more now. And it’s why if food and gas prices lift inflation even slightly above current rates, consumer spending could weaken and slow the economy.

Inflation hurts more than it did 30 years ago

 

[Foxfyre]

The point in my previous post is that there wasn't a hell of a lot of federal or state welfare and stuff like that in the 50's and people pretty much expected to work for what they had. And there have been times of boom and times of bust just as the world has experienced all the way back into ancient Biblical times. Overall, the American standard of living has substantially increased for all, including welfare recipients, over the last 50 years, but those who have applied themselves and done what was necessary to get ahead have generally managed to do just that.

"Spreading the wealth" around artificially is the greatest killer of initiative, creativity, and willingness to do what one has to do to get ahead that I can think of.

 

[boedicca]

The point in my previous post is that there wasn't a hell of a lot of federal or state welfare and stuff like that in the 50's and people pretty much expected to work for what they had. And there have been times of boom and times of bust just as the world has experienced all the way back into ancient Biblical times. Overall, the American standard of living has substantially increased for all, including welfare recipients, over the last 50 years, but those who have applied themselves and done what was necessary to get ahead have generally managed to do just that.

"Spreading the wealth" around artificially is the greatest killer of initiative, creativity, and willingness to do what one has to do to get ahead that I can think of.

The New Deal Social Security expenditure problem was nascent in the 1950s. In 1950, there were 16.5 taxpayers to beneficiary; this ratio was reduced to 5.1 in 1960. We are now at 3 to 1.

It's a snowballing problem.

Social Security Online - HISTORY