Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:12 pm
by TheCatt
Or maybe not owe, but should we, as a country, feel obligated to provide everyone with an equal start?
When I look at my family's budget, I know we make a lot of money. A lot more than the median family income. Yet, after retirement, college savings, etc, we don't have a ton left over every month [Just looking at my 1 income here, not counting my 2nd income]. The average age of our cars is 13 years. We don't live opulently.
When I look at people around who make median income or something similar, I honestly don't know how they make it. Approximately 62% of Americans couldn't afford an emergency $1,000 bill. Student loans are are $35,000 on average for graduates, up from $10,000 20 years (no idea if that # is appropriately adjusted for inflation, but even in nominal dollars, that far exceeds inflation). We've allowed illegal immigration to devalue manual labor. Minimum wage is lower in real terms than it was 50 years ago. The middle class (2/3rd to 200% of median household income) is shrinking, and its share of income has dropped from 62% to 43% over the past 44 years. The gains have gone entirely to people in the upper class.
Education is the responsible of the government, primarily local and state. Yet even in localities, there's a wide range of educational availability and quality.
Should America provide a more level starting place for people? What would that involve?
Just some thoughts... but I honestly don't see how America avoids becoming more socialist in the next 20 years.
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:28 pm
by GORDON
What isn't level about it?
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:37 pm
by Vince
I think we have an obligation to help people where we can as individuals, not collectively. There's no grace (or altruism or whatever) in compulsory giving.
I agree that we are going to probably become more socialist. At least until the dollar collapses. Then I'm not sure which direction we'll go in.
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:40 pm
by GORDON
As far as I can see everyone has an equal chance to "succeed," and even more chance if you aren't white, whatever the definition is of "success" is, as far as their natural talents can take them. If their parents couldn't give them a head start, I don't see how that is anyone elses responsibility.
I have been looking up private school scholarships, recently. There's tons out there... if you aren't white.
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:58 pm
by Malcolm
What's the median income you're using as a yard stick?
Yet, after retirement, college savings, etc, we don't have a ton left over every month
When I look at people around who make median income or something similar, I honestly don't know how they make it
They aren't saving for college or retirement.
Student loans are are $35,000 on average for graduates, up from $10,000 20 years
Hence my remark that they aren't saving for college. How many of them pay that shit back? They can also sign up for the army and get free school.
Approximately 62% of Americans couldn't afford an emergency $1,000 bill.
Maybe they ought to sign up for that sweet, sweet Obamacare insurance which was supposed to save the world.
We've allowed illegal immigration to devalue manual labor.
Unless you want to spend exorbitant amounts of cash bouncing them back across the border, that sort of thing is inevitable.
Minimum wage is lower in real terms than it was 50 years ago.
Funny, the manufacturing capacities of Mexico, China, India, etc., were lower 50 years ago than they are now.
The middle class (2/3rd to 200% of median household income) is shrinking, and its share of income has dropped from 62% to 43% over the past 44 years. The gains have gone entirely to people in the upper class.
I call bullshit. My family was decidedly middle class when I was growing up, albeit white collar middle class. They managed to get 2 out of 3 kids to finish college (the last one got 3 years through, quit for a decade or so, then started again). Even if you adjust income for inflation, all 3 children are making more than their parents: one works in bank finances, one in telephony, then there's me. If my stupid ass had paid more attention to scholarships when I was a high school senior, I'd be up about $50K. For my age, I might be considered upper. Then again, I don't have a mortgage, car payment, wife, or kids to worry about.
Education is the responsible of the government, primarily local and state.
No, it's not. They provide the bottom of the barrel safety net. Education is both a personal responsibility and, up to a certain age, that of the parents.
Should America provide a more level starting place for people?
Really? Don't we already provide grants, scholarships, affirmative action, quotas? Your starting place is generally as level as you're willing to bust your ass.
What would that involve?
Ponies, free ones, and shitloads of them. Perhaps people who understand that "earning a living" from this point on is going to include competing against dudes and technology from other countries. I'm waiting for checkout jobs to go the way of the elevator operator.
What isn't level about it?
Said the great white oppressor.
Edited By Malcolm on 1455584381
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:20 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:What isn't level about it?
Rich people can afford fancy private school. Can afford to send their kids to fancy colleges. Can afford to have their kids graduate without debt. Tutors for children. Better and more stable home life. Better nutrition. More opportunities to explore the world. Variance in health care quality.
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:25 pm
by GORDON
You say "equal start," but I guess I need to ask what you see the as the goal?
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:27 pm
by TheCatt
Malcolm wrote:blah blah blah
The #s are complicated, since they adjust based on # of people living in the household.
But yes, you're upper class, not middle.
They aren't saving for college or retirement.
Right, so we're going to end up paying for those people anyway. Or they're just setup for a much harder life.
Maybe they ought to sign up for that sweet, sweet Obamacare insurance which was supposed to save the world.
I wasn't referring to a health care bill.
Unless you want to spend exorbitant amounts of cash bouncing them back across the border, that sort of thing is inevitable.
Many Americans benefited from this policy, cheaper food, etc. But many suffered. They still suffered regardless of the now situation.
I call bullshit.
Yes, your one anecdote clearly trumps all economists in existence. Here's mine: My father was a cardiologist. I make a lot less than him, clearly the US is doomed.
No, it's not. They provide the bottom of the barrel safety net.
No, 83% of the people in my county are educated by public schools. That's not a safety net, that's the norm.
Don't we already provide grants, scholarships, affirmative action, quotas?
I think both you and Gordon are ascribing race to a socioeconomic issue.
There's a whole lot of people in the world less capable that the denizens of this board. How do they get ahead? How do they move forward?
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:31 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:There's a whole lot of people in the world less capable that the denizens of this board. How do they get ahead? How do they move forward?
It's easy for me to sit here and say, "Don't succumb to bad influences when you're young, stay off drugs, and read a lot... like I did," but I saw Precious, and I know some kids don't have a chance.
1. I don't think all people have the brain power to succeed in academia no matter how rich their parents are. I think this is ok.
2. Leveling the playing field means more than money, it often means taking children away from bad parents. Great big new bag of worms. How far would you want to take it?
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:20 pm
by Malcolm
That's not a safety net, that's the norm.
Not my fault the norm is fucking stupid. The gov't at all levels wants to produce a stable base of voters with mediocre intelligence so the populace doesn't deduce how badly it's getting fucked.
How do they get ahead? How do they move forward?
First off, there's more free information available now than at any point in history. As far as this country goes, every public library has internet access. Secondly, life isn't fair, it's brutal and cruel. To get ahead or move forward...
"earning a living" from this point on is going to include competing against dudes and technology from other countries.
Renting out your body and brain to do menial tasks isn't getting the return it used to. You'd better have a plan to deal with that in an economic sense. I'm not going to support your ass if you want to stay in the buggy whip industry nor is that possible.
Rich people can afford fancy private school. Can afford to send their kids to fancy colleges. Can afford to have their kids graduate without debt. Tutors for children. Better and more stable home life. Better nutrition. More opportunities to explore the world. Variance in health care quality.
I'll give you no debt, health care, and a tendency towards a more stable home life. On the flip side there's the Clubber Lang theory which says that being the underdog is an edge when your competition is complacent.
Leveling the playing field means more than money, it often means taking children away from bad parents.
That's still money. Offspring aren't free.
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:21 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:2. Leveling the playing field means more than money, it often means taking children away from bad parents. Great big new bag of worms. How far would you want to take it?
I don't know. I'm just playing around with ideas at this point. I've always considered myself to be Libertarian leaning, but I don't think Libertarianism is the best thing for the country. Trying to reconcile those two. Like, as-if I were coming up with an election campaign for myself to be President - Where would I stand on the issues, for the country?
1. I don't think all people have the brain power to succeed in academia no matter how rich their parents are. I think this is ok.
Then what happens to those people, do we support them through charity, tax people and support them directly, indirectly tax people by higher minimum wages? Give them $10k a year and let them figure it out on their own?
I would definitely end the War On Drugs. But I don't think anyone much cares about it (despite more than 1M incarcerated people just from drugs, $50bn+ spend on enforcement, etc, etc).
Economy - I support higher minimum wage. I don't support $15/hour. I DO support an increased, regional minimum wage. 5 tiers might be too complicated. Maybe 3 tiers.
Taxes - I support increased marginal tax rates on high earners ($400k+). I also support slightly higher capital gains and dividend tax rates for couples above $250k. I support getting rid of the carried interest exemption (hedge fund owners). I support lower the estate tax threshold, and making estate taxes more progressive. I would strongly support tax simplification. I oppose a national sales tax. Most of this revenue would be used to pay down debt, and balance the budget.
Regulation - Federal regulation needs to be simpler, and the cost of compliance must be reduced.
Climate change - I believe that it's human caused, and supporting solar and wind power initiatives. But I would have supported Keystone XL.
Guns - I support expanded background checks, but not much else changewise.
Healthcare - This is probably one of the largest problems. I really don't know what the answer here is. But our system is expensive.
Education - I certainly don't want to subsidize people studying puppetry and bullshit in college. But I'm quite thankful for the low-cost, high-quality public education I got for my Bachelors and Masters.
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:28 pm
by Malcolm
I don't think all people have the brain power to succeed in academia no matter how rich their parents are. I think this is ok.
I think it's a large inequality. Brain power is connected to earning power. Some old-ass European professor taught my cousin at a particularly stringent tech uni. I'll paraphrase him. "You Americans with all your academic tests, I never understood this. In my home, if you didn't study and perform, you got left by the wayside."
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:31 pm
by GORDON
Well, there's always the "Minimum income" idea. We addressed the big wrinkles in it in our discussion, and I think with the increasing automation of the economy something like this will be needed before we have tens of millions of people homeless in the cities clustered around food banks. But that still requires a minimum amount of intelligence, too, to ensure people aren't taking their monthly $1600 (or whatever) and spending it all on day 1 on cigs and lottery tickets.
Personally, I am in favor of removing kids from bad parents, and sterilizing the parents. But determining who is a bad parent with 100% reliability... hard.
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:17 pm
by Vince
The premise here is false though. People from families in the upper economic bracket end up in lower brackets and people starting in lower brackets end up in higher brackets. Poor people get rich and rich people piss away opportunities and end up poor. I think I saw the stat somewhere that something like 80% of all millionaires are first generation millionaires. Generations move up and down through economic classes naturally. You're not going to be able to force an equal outcome. Well, that's not entirely true. In most socialist countries everyone equally sucks. Take some time looking for real estate in Denmark. They pay out the ass for average sized homes. And they're doing this with about 40% of their take home pay.
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:43 pm
by TheCatt
Right. I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.
The things I mentioned are drags on class mobility. The fact that some people move doesn't mean it is as easy as it used to be.
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:36 pm
by Malcolm
The fact that some people move doesn't mean it is as easy as it used to be.
When, pray tell, was this magical period when it was "easier?" Before access to information got cheaper and faster? Before technology connected the globe and had an impact even on microeconomies? Before you could self-publish your own book, song, or game? Have we started doling out titles of nobility and restricting the peasants from certain offices? It's impossible to give everyone any kind of "equal" start in life. The best that can happen is to make some of the same basic opportunities available for everyone. Opportunities are neither gifts nor guarantees.
Major issues:
How much do you intend to "help" someone?
Where do you draw the line and decree someone has wasted society's good will and will no longer receive their livelihood from public welfare, and what do you do then?
What do you do with the dependents of someone in that situation?
How much are you willing to spend to do this and where does the cash come from?
Edited By Malcolm on 1455598465
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:49 pm
by Vince
TheCatt wrote:Right. I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.
But that's where you'll end up. As long as outcomes aren't equal, those that suck at life will say that they aren't being given enough of a hand up to compete. What's the old saying about success having many parents but failure is an orphan? No one will accept blame for their failures, but instead blame "the system".
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:49 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote:TheCatt wrote:Right. I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.
But that's where you'll end up. As long as outcomes aren't equal, those that suck at life will say that they aren't being given enough of a hand up to compete. What's the old saying about success having many parents but failure is an orphan? No one will accept blame for their failures, but instead blame "the system".
No, we won't end up there. No country has ended up there. That argument is useless.
At any rate, I've got vertigo today and the meds are killing me.
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:05 pm
by TPRJones
TheCatt wrote:Should America provide a more level starting place for people? What would that involve? ... I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.
In order for a new generation to have an equal starting point you have to - to one degree or another - redistribute the wealth of the prior generation that is producing them in the first place. And for every bit of money or effort you give to lifting up the disadvantaged children you have to take at least 10% more (sometimes much more if the system is inefficient) from the not-poor children to make it happen. TANSTAAFL.
To what degree going into Robin Hooding is ideal for society is a conversation to have. But don't start it by not admitting that is what it is.
The fact that some people move doesn't mean it is as easy as it used to be.
I would disagree with this premise. I suspect there was a period in the latter half of the 20th century when this was true, but I think that trend is reversing as we move into a digital economy.
Edited By TPRJones on 1455678483
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:15 pm
by TheCatt
TPRJones wrote:TheCatt wrote:Should America provide a more level starting place for people? What would that involve? ... I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.
In order for a new generation to have an equal starting point you have to - to one degree or another - redistribute the wealth of the prior generation that is producing them in the first place. And for every bit of money or effort you give to lifting up the disadvantaged children you have to take at least 10% more (sometimes much more if the system is inefficient) from the not-poor children to make it happen. TANSTAAFL.
To what degree going into Robin Hooding is ideal for society is a conversation to have. But don't start it by not admitting that is what it is.
Did I ever say otherwise?
I even mentioned back several posts a number of taxes to help pay for things.