93 replies to this topic

[Rational Madman]

I think this article is pertinent..
http://www.economist...m_in_inequality
Quote from text...
'If the egalitarians are right, then average happiness levels should be falling. But they aren't. The GSS shows that in 1972, 30 percent of the population said that they were "very happy" with their lives; in 1982, 31 percent; in 1993, 32 percent; in 2004, 31 percent. In other words, no significant change in reported happiness occurred—even as income inequality increased by nearly half.'

The population is 30% larger now than it was in 1972. Therefor this statement is pure rubbish and the actual percentage of the WHOLE population that is happy has gone down.

Where did you get that information from? From the economist article these percentages are for the whole population at the time that the surveys were taken, so they did adjust for this.

I never denied that adjustment, I simply pointed out the part of it no one else seems to want to. That is, the 70% of the population that is STILL unhappy. And that 69% of today is much larger than the 70% was in 1972, as per that same adjustments. Let's talk about that, instead of gloating over the 31% of the population who are either rich or stupid and voting against their interests.

In no survey of individual well-being has it been found that 70% of the population in the United States is unhappy. Look at the survey questions of studies, and you'll find that the choices are rarely just "happy" or "not happy."

Edited by Rol82, 15 November 2010 - 10:36 PM.

[Rational Madman]

And you propose that homeless shelters are luxury compared to what people in third world countries have to deal with on a daily basis? Here in the US, the homeless are much below the mean, so I doubt they contribute much to income inequality.

Not when you consider socialized programs such as welfare and the very scant income it provides. Of course this is not being raised in the forementioned articles, but if it were it would even widen the gap further. There are over 50,000 homeless people in new york alone. That is no insignificant number. And the people in poverty number in the millions.

First of all, and this is a point people tend to overlook far too much. Alot of homeless people are homeless because of 1-drug addiction and 2-Mental illness. Exactly, that makes it hard to fix.

Not if you look at more compassionate methods of addressing the issue. But in order to do this you have to undermine the importance of 'me me me' and inflate the importance of anonymous, nameless faces.

I have volunteered for such places, I know them from the inside out. I know how they work and how woefully doomed they are to failure. That is a failure to really address the homeless issue. What ends up happening is a persistence of the issue. Keeping mentally ill, drug addicts fed is not a noble thing. So do you have a better idea to address the homeless issue ?

Yes, socialism. Plain and simple. You redistribute wealth from all these pathetic movie stars and politicians and you give a small amount of it to programs designed to reform and employ these people. The free market is not really 'free' as it is often alluded to. It has been artificially stimulated by all sorts of financial institutions since the declaration. It is time to openly declare ourselves a socialist nation so this way we can actually do a damn thing about the issues with inequality we face.

Let's be real about this, we engage all sorts of socialized programs. The only reason they do not work as well as they could is because they are hindered by the capitalist equation, which I might add, is a false, non-existent abstract paradigm designed to enslave people economically. The only people that benefit from 'capitalism' are ancestors of the people who created it (that is, similar types of thinkers) and people who choose to conform to that paradigm. Anyone else is left out in the cold, so to speak. If you ask me we should have a right to create our own economy at the state level, to completely gut the system and start fresh. Just my little opinion but I know alot of people who feel the same way.

My dear, a left wing equivalent of Sarah Palin.

Don't compare me with people who don't care about the population.

Well, you both have a shoot from the gut without regarding the facts quality.

You're just making up a comparison to validate your own argument.

I'm making a comparison, which I deem a correct one, and citing supporting evidence. You on the other hand, are making emotionally charged arguments that are mostly without an adequate basis.

I just do not trust alot of these publicized articles. Sorry, but I actually think for myself and form my own analysis based on available data. Unlike some apparently. You fail to address the very real fact that most technological break throughs are coming from overseas. Whether or not this was cited in a journal or not is irrelevant.

Ahh, the final nail....

I found a great 2008 Rand Corporation study titled "US Competitiveness in Science and Technology," which contains the following highlights:
-The United States accounts for 40% of all research and development spending (which is higher than I previously thought).
-It produces 63% of the most frequently cited publications.
-Is responsible for 38% of newly patented technologies.
-It employs 37% of all researchers in the OECD.
-Between 1993 and 2003, there was an average patent growth rate of 6.6%, compared to 5.1% in the EU, and 4.1% in Japan.
-Federal spending only accounted for $86 billion of a total R&D spending in the United States in 2004.

http://www.rand.org/.../RAND_MG674.pdf

[Rational Madman]

Education and Economic Mobility, by Ron Haskins
http://www.brookings...sawhill_ch8.pdf

[Rational Madman]

Here are some other points that warrant further exploration:
---Between 1991 and 2005, the total compensation for individuals with postgraduate degrees increased by 43%, while their numbers only increased by 34% in this period.
---The data suggests a strong correlation between at least a bachelor's degree education and the income earnings of individuals within the top 5% and 1% brackets. But as I suggested earlier, institutional reputation and subject concentrations are also strong determinants. For holders of undergraduate degrees, the standard deviation is 26%, and for those with postgraduate degrees, 35%. For degree concentration, there is a variance of 78% in the starting salaries of Computer Science and Visual Arts majors, and over 80% between the former and high school graduates. Looking at the average starting compensation of MBA graduates, there's also a significant variance due to institutional reputation, with graduates from schools ranked in the top 20% earning starting salaries 85% higher than graduates of lesser schools ranked in the bottom 20%.
--With the growing demand for certain specializations, like financial services, computer science, engineering, mathematics, business, and accounting, those possessing advanced degrees from premier institutions enjoyed a remarkable growth in compensation in the last three decades, which helps to illuminate the differences in income growth between the top fifth and other four fifths---in a way that alternative explanations of trade, de-unionization, race/gender/ethnicity, and tax and regulatory treatment cannot.
--This thesis is endorsed by Thomas Lemieux, who also suggests that a heightened demand for higher education among job applicants helps to explain the extent of the concentration of income dispersion among groups of top earners: http://www.zew.de/en..._06/Lemieux.pdf
--Another paper illustrating the relative rewards of higher education and different specializations: http://www.collegebo...ionPays2004.pdf

Edited by Rol82, 16 November 2010 - 07:37 AM.