Post: #51

(04-09-2015 11:52 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  Student loans are government food stamps for liberal academia, except with much better perks.

Farm subsidy checks are food stamps for fat lazy farmers, gov't schools are food stamps for parents, roads built to last only a few years are food stamps for politician's buddies with construction business, the list goes on forever. Everyone is on the dole. People who get food stamps are welfare paupers, the groups people never bitch about are the real welfare queens.

Post: #52

(04-10-2015 05:35 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 11:52 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  Student loans are government food stamps for liberal academia, except with much better perks.

Farm subsidy checks are food stamps for fat lazy farmers, gov't schools are food stamps for parents, roads built to last only a few years are food stamps for politician's buddies with construction business, the list goes on forever. Everyone is on the dole. People who get food stamps are welfare paupers, the groups people never bitch about are the real welfare queens.

The biggest welfare program is the military.

Post: #53

Nearly 80% of Americans will be on some form of welfare or assistance from the state at some point during their lives.

   

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/busine....html?_r=0

Likewise, over 30% will make over 200k per year at least one year in their life.

That means there is at least some segment of the population (at least 10%, likely much higher) that experiences both relative wealth and poverty over the course of their adult life. We need to stop talking about how there are the poor who take advantage of the system and the wealthy who fund it (or vice versa depending on your political views) and realize that both groups are fairly dynamic (when judged by income - accumulated wealth is another story but nobody likes to talk about that).

Post: #54

Over 30% of people will make over 200k at some point in their life? I don't buy that for a second. Maybe if you are talking about Manhattan or Silicon Valley, but America at large? I don't see how the that's even numerically possible. If you make over 200k you are like in the top 5% of incomes.

edit--

Actually I see what was meant now. You left out the context. This was between 1969-2011 with inflation adjusted figures:

Quote:Equally important, Mr. Hirschl found a high degree of income volatility among most Americans in the four decades between 1969 and 2011. At some point in their working lives, a full 70 percent earned enough to put them in the top fifth of earners, and as many as 30 percent reached the equivalent of $200,000 in 2009 dollars, or roughly the top 4 percent.

Post: #55

The general conclusion historically speaking seems that the middle class that emerged in the post years of the great depression in the West (America, Canada, Western Europe, Australia) was nothing more than a blip, an economic anomaly.

All throughout history, there has always been a small percentage of super wealthy, smart, connected people, and then everyone else. That included the American colonies up to the great depression. Much of modern culture, religion, music, oral and written tradition seem to discuss the plight of the masses. Whether it's the Roman Empire, the dark ages, the gilded age, feudal age, slavery in the south, and the industrialization era, a highly lopsided accumulation of wealth has always been a central fact of life. This seems to be a reccuring pattern all throughout the globe in all societies.

We're just reverting to the natural way things have always been, but in a more globalized scale. This may be something that we can't actually stop. If the masses are well fed, entertained, and have something to do with their idle time, order is kept and life goes on. If they go hungry...well have a look at Russia in 1916 to get an idea.

Post: #56

(04-10-2015 06:42 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  We're just reverting to the natural way things have always been, but in a more globalized scale. This may be something that we can't actually stop

It can be stopped. The Occupy Wall Street movement was the first harbinger of what I think will become a louder voice in coming decades. When wealth becomes too concentrated, you eventually have revolution. You will start seeing a rise of left-wing parties around the world.

America is somewhat unique in that it is the last Western country that has not become thoroughly secular and it has the doctrine of the Protestant Ethic that most Americans believe in to some degree or another. Namely that hard work is an ethical value in and of itself and that poverty is the result of not working hard enough and wealth is the result of working hard. Thus wealthy people are better people than poor people. This is why you have so many working class and poor Republicans in the heartland that essentially vote against their own economic interests and enter an unholy alliance with Wall Street Republicans.

As the WASP culture that gave birth to the Protestant Ethic is demographically diminished, we'll see economic inequality and class struggle rise as prominent issues to tackle in need of political solutions. And the "they're just too lazy to become rich" mantra will have fewer sympathetic ears.

Post: #57

Quote:As the WASP culture that gave birth to the Protestant Ethic is demographically diminished, we'll see economic inequality and class struggle rise as prominent issues to tackle in need of political solutions. And the "they're just too lazy to become rich" mantra will have fewer sympathetic ears.

The mantra on both sides is simplistic and shortsighted. What we're experiencing are just the growing pains of a stage in human development, where the generation of wealth is no longer a physical activity (production of goods, resources, or labor) and as a result, it's difficult for the people who would typically fill production- or agriculture-based roles to contribute. There are no more steel mills, production lines, or assembly plants putting food on the table, only tech startups, marketing agencies, and IT resellers.

Like the domestication of farm animals or invention of the printing press, there are periods of history which fundamentally alter the organization of people and division of resources across all societies, and the internet age is just part of the cycle.

But people are people, so it's natural for emotions like envy and jealousy ("the rich are to blame for all my problems!") or self-righteousness and pride ("all the poor are lazy, it's their own fault!") to influence the narrative.

Post: #58

(04-10-2015 08:20 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:As the WASP culture that gave birth to the Protestant Ethic is demographically diminished, we'll see economic inequality and class struggle rise as prominent issues to tackle in need of political solutions. And the "they're just too lazy to become rich" mantra will have fewer sympathetic ears.

The mantra on both sides is simplistic and shortsighted. What we're experiencing are just the growing pains of a stage in human development, where the generation of wealth is no longer a physical activity (production of goods, resources, or labor) and as a result, it's difficult for the people who would typically fill production- or agriculture-based roles to contribute. There are no more steel mills, production lines, or assembly plants putting food on the table, only tech startups, marketing agencies, and IT resellers.

Like the domestication of farm animals or invention of the printing press, there are periods of history which fundamentally alter the organization of people and division of resources across all societies, and the internet age is just part of the cycle.

But people are people, so it's natural for emotions like envy and jealousy ("the rich are to blame for all my problems!") or self-righteousness and pride ("all the poor are lazy, it's their own fault!") to influence the narrative.

Even if everyone had high IQ, there still wouldn't be close to enough jobs.

Post: #59

(04-11-2015 04:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 08:20 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:As the WASP culture that gave birth to the Protestant Ethic is demographically diminished, we'll see economic inequality and class struggle rise as prominent issues to tackle in need of political solutions. And the "they're just too lazy to become rich" mantra will have fewer sympathetic ears.

The mantra on both sides is simplistic and shortsighted. What we're experiencing are just the growing pains of a stage in human development, where the generation of wealth is no longer a physical activity (production of goods, resources, or labor) and as a result, it's difficult for the people who would typically fill production- or agriculture-based roles to contribute. There are no more steel mills, production lines, or assembly plants putting food on the table, only tech startups, marketing agencies, and IT resellers.

Like the domestication of farm animals or invention of the printing press, there are periods of history which fundamentally alter the organization of people and division of resources across all societies, and the internet age is just part of the cycle.

But people are people, so it's natural for emotions like envy and jealousy ("the rich are to blame for all my problems!") or self-righteousness and pride ("all the poor are lazy, it's their own fault!") to influence the narrative.

Even if everyone had high IQ, there still wouldn't be close to enough jobs.

If everyone had a high IQ and we allocated our resources towards innovation and creation and not to wasteful bureaucracies, I think most everyone would have a job and a need.

But not everyone has a high IQ, so the low value citizens vote in bureaucracies to feed themselves/employ themselves.

We are reaching a point in human civilization where the lower IQ men and the fat ugly women have absolutely no value any longer. Technology has replaced the need for muscle and the lower IQ men are no longer needed to lift/haul/move. Our world is more than plenty populated thanks to advances in healthcare ensuring mortality rates have nearly reversed from 100 years ago. So many of the fat ugly, in reality bad genetics, women are no longer needed.

I certainly don't blame the low value citizens for voting in bureaucracies for their own self interests. The problem is, these same bureaucracies choke out innovation and advancement and we near a huge bubble where push comes to shove and something will have to give. And the longer we wait to pop this bubble, the worse it will be.

Post: #60

As Captain Capitalism put it..." If you can't beat them, join them." Your tax dollars pay for it, don't be afraid to get it back.

Post: #61

DjembaDjemba there has always been wars and disease does that make them "natural" and necessary? Most people can build modest to moderate wealth.

Post: #62

I used to think that taking from another person or entity, e.g the USG, was unmoral but since I came to America and after watching a lot of my Cuban friends get wasted with unemployment money, food stamp, and of course Medicare. I just do not think there is other solution besides kicking the can tills the shit hits the fan.

Im not blaming the disadvantaged and advantaged poor classes. But I have worked with Uncle Sam's Contractors to really know that Corporate Welfare is in another level compared to the breadcrumbs thrown at the middle and lower class.

So fuck it. I have some coin but whenever I can, I fucking game the system till Im at the edge of the law.

Post: #63

(04-11-2015 06:23 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 04:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 08:20 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:As the WASP culture that gave birth to the Protestant Ethic is demographically diminished, we'll see economic inequality and class struggle rise as prominent issues to tackle in need of political solutions. And the "they're just too lazy to become rich" mantra will have fewer sympathetic ears.

The mantra on both sides is simplistic and shortsighted. What we're experiencing are just the growing pains of a stage in human development, where the generation of wealth is no longer a physical activity (production of goods, resources, or labor) and as a result, it's difficult for the people who would typically fill production- or agriculture-based roles to contribute. There are no more steel mills, production lines, or assembly plants putting food on the table, only tech startups, marketing agencies, and IT resellers.

Like the domestication of farm animals or invention of the printing press, there are periods of history which fundamentally alter the organization of people and division of resources across all societies, and the internet age is just part of the cycle.

But people are people, so it's natural for emotions like envy and jealousy ("the rich are to blame for all my problems!") or self-righteousness and pride ("all the poor are lazy, it's their own fault!") to influence the narrative.

Even if everyone had high IQ, there still wouldn't be close to enough jobs.

If everyone had a high IQ and we allocated our resources towards innovation and creation and not to wasteful bureaucracies, I think most everyone would have a job and a need.

But not everyone has a high IQ, so the low value citizens vote in bureaucracies to feed themselves/employ themselves.

We are reaching a point in human civilization where the lower IQ men and the fat ugly women have absolutely no value any longer. Technology has replaced the need for muscle and the lower IQ men are no longer needed to lift/haul/move. Our world is more than plenty populated thanks to advances in healthcare ensuring mortality rates have nearly reversed from 100 years ago. So many of the fat ugly, in reality bad genetics, women are no longer needed.

I know this goes against conventional thought, but if everyone had high IQ then society would be awash in surplus labor creating a huge class of unemployed people. Most likely these people would try to find employment within entertainment or maybe government make-work schemes, but overall people forget that more IQ = more surplus labor. There is a point, like everything else, where increased labor meets diminishing returns.

Likewise, the I suspect the diminishing returns of a pure high IQ society with regards to labor to be extremely high. A normal 20-40% unemployment rate could be the norm but I am sure there would be government make-work or more entertainment type jobs created but will be low-pay.

I wonder at what point a new system is finally created? A "post-work" type of world? Where the return on a man's labor is so low he has no need to ever labor? He can acquire nearly everything for free because of automation? I know this sounds extreme but this is what a sustained high IQ environment will produce over 3-5 centuries.

Again, if this sounds extreme please keep in mind that right now, most of the world's wealth is concentrated within a small minority of .01%, and yet it somehow sustains 7 billion people on it. Already, the high IQ societies have produced so much surplus labor the world population has exploded. Just extrapolate this to the end and wonder what is a post-work world going to be like?