High Income inequality is detrimental to a societies wellbeing.

You didn't get my point. It is irrelevant what you believe. Look at hard numbers. When it comes to quality of life, development, etc.Scandinavian countries are far above the US (although the US is still a great country). This is not up for discussion. You may love your country because you grew up there, like I love my completely f*cked-up country, but this is the reality. Just look at hard data and you'll come to the same conclusions.

nunovlopes

I never questioned the "numbers". I simply don't care about them. If you want those things, move to a Scandinavian country.

I will never come to the conclusion that socialism would be good for this country. Sure, it'll be good for those who don't work, who don't want to work, but it wouldn't benefit me in the slightest.

Yeah they could work 16-hour days instead of 12-hour days, while making next to nothing per hour worked. Neglecting family, etc. That seems like a good plan.

I'm going to guess you grew up as a rich spoiled kid who never faced any income-related difficulties.

nunovlopes

I don't see the problem there...if they want to make more money they should go to a trade school, or relocate and find better work.

Lol, my parents were far from rich when I grew up. I bought my first car from my uncle by working at his shop for a year and I joined the military when I was 18 in order to get my college paid for.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

You didn't get my point. It is irrelevant what you believe. Look at hard numbers. When it comes to quality of life, development, etc.Scandinavian countries are far above the US (although the US is still a great country). This is not up for discussion. You may love your country because you grew up there, like I love my completely f*cked-up country, but this is the reality. Just look at hard data and you'll come to the same conclusions.

airshocker

I never questioned the "numbers". I simply don't care about them. If you want those things, move to a Scandinavian country.

I will never come to the conclusion that socialism would be good for this country. Sure, it'll be good for those who don't work, who don't want to work, but it wouldn't benefit me in the slightest.

I'm done arguing with you. You've clearly been brainwashed. You think your country is the best for emotional reasons alone. You're incapable of thinking rationally. Good-bye.

I'm done arguing with you. You've clearly been brainwashed. You think your country is the best for emotional reasons alone. You're incapable of thinking rationally. Good-bye.

nunovlopes

Yes, I'm clearly brainwashed because I don't agree with your views on socialism. Okay. :lol:

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.

US has high income mobility so your point is moot.DaBrainz

"By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of
intergenerational mobility: our parents' income is highly predictive of our incomes
as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France,
Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income
countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom
had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/hertz_mobility_analysis.pdf

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]US has high income mobility so your point is moot.StRaItJaCkEt36

[QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"]

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]US has high income mobility so your point is moot.DaBrainz

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"] is the high income mobility available to everyone on equal terms? OR does it come easier for some people than others because of the initial finical support of their families. I think high income mobility, would only be a significant counter argument if it's occurring most frequently at the lowest level of income. But that's not what is happening. Income mobility for the lowest level of income is less really quite low.

StRaItJaCkEt36

US has high income mobility so your point is moot.DaBrainz

[QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"]

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"] It in fact does. From decade to decade about half of people move from the lowest quintile to a higher quintile. Conversely, About 60% of people in the top 1 % drop out of the top 1% from over the same amount of time.DaBrainz

Again, for the most part mobility and the oppurtunity for mobility is restricted and usuasly predetermined by what parents you are born to. There are exceptions, but those fall in the extreme minority.

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"] care to provide real research? to be honest with you. that sounds like a lie.

StRaItJaCkEt36

[QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"]

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"] http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdfDaBrainz

[QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"]

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"] http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdfDaBrainz

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"] That's a very very small study. That's talking about a 10 year period where the us economy was at one of it's highest points of growth in it's history. Of course you should see a high degree of mobility BOTH up and down. I don't think that says the U.S. offers a high chance for upward mobility for everybody. In fact, it even shows you that allot of people had to go down in order for others to move up. And most of those people were not at the bottom in our society. The people in that study were in the bottom tax bracket. There are plenty of people who don't pay taxes .

StRaItJaCkEt36

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I say it's a good indicator for the reason I outlined to diffuse that moronic argument that "OH the lowest in the US is greater than the highest in Somalia so we shouldn't change anything here hurr durr" but it is subject to being skewed depending on various factors: population, average income, amount of poor vs. wealthy, etc.

However, I think of it as an adequate tool in the social sciences for getting a general grasp on the level of egalitarianism in a given country, which would be good for explaining the severity of a wealth gap in comparison to another country on its level (comparing a first world state with a first world state) but extensive research does need to follow in order to gain a complete grasp on how the disparity of wealth truly affects the country in question.

tl;dr: good general comparative tool for an overview, but not sufficient for a detailed research endeavour.

THE_DRUGGIE

Never thought I'd see the day when I'd completely agree with someone on GS in a political thread.

I mean sure, the strong correlation in my view is more pertaining to the general scope of a country's economic disparity but is it right for me to assume that you feel the same way since you said it's not the whole story? If so, then yeah I completely agree with this. If not, your opinion is still an outcome that has considerable weight for reasons you've outlined.

Either way, that was a good post.

Thanks :)

I actually tend to agree with many political views here but not with all all the time. I'm one of the "controversial" posters here I guess :P

I usually agree with your posts by the way and I was actually agreeing with what you said here, I was just expanding on it.

I never questioned the "numbers". I simply don't care about them.

airshocker

I suppose this statement says as much about you as anything in this thread. You seem to have an emotionally driven hatred of socialism that is not rooted in any kind of logic. So I suppose trying to use logic to persuade you of otherwise is useless.

I suppose this statement says as much about you as anything in this thread. You seem to have an emotionally driven hatred of socialism that is not rooted in any kind of logic. So I suppose trying to use logic to persuade you of otherwise is useless.EntropyWins

Of course I have a hatred of people being rewarded for being mediocre. Don't you?

That's all socialism does. It doesn't improve my life since I'm not mediocre. How can you persuade me to support something that will harm me?

I heard the USSR was a great place to live.

Read this. Income Gap Myth.

I heard the USSR was a great place to live.

SpartanMSU

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]I suppose this statement says as much about you as anything in this thread. You seem to have an emotionally driven hatred of socialism that is not rooted in any kind of logic. So I suppose trying to use logic to persuade you of otherwise is useless.airshocker

Of course I have a hatred of people being rewarded for being mediocre. Don't you?

That's all socialism does. It doesn't improve my life since I'm not mediocre. How can you persuade me to support something that will harm me?

:roll:cmon dude, that's like saying that all that capitalism does is foster inequality. oh wait...

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]I suppose this statement says as much about you as anything in this thread. You seem to have an emotionally driven hatred of socialism that is not rooted in any kind of logic. So I suppose trying to use logic to persuade you of otherwise is useless.airshocker

Of course I have a hatred of people being rewarded for being mediocre. Don't you?

That's all socialism does. It doesn't improve my life since I'm not mediocre. How can you persuade me to support something that will harm me?

I think it is much better for the life of a society to structure itself in a way that sustains its existence indefinitely, which (among many things) means preventing the wealth gap from becoming too large. Mind you, this does not mean giving people money for nothing, which is what you want to make socialism out to be.

I never questioned the "numbers". I simply don't care about them. If you want those things, move to a Scandinavian country.

I will never come to the conclusion that socialism would be good for this country. Sure, it'll be good for those who don't work, who don't want to work, but it wouldn't benefit me in the slightest.

airshocker

Me, me, me. It's no wonder people think arguing with you is fruitless.

Capitalism is sh!t.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I heard the USSR was a great place to live.

ghoklebutter

:roll:cmon dude, that's like saying that all that capitalism does is foster inequality. oh wait...

nZiFFLe

Then how exactly will socialism benefit me? Give me a point by point analysis.

this does not mean giving people money for nothing, which is what you want to make socialism out to be.

EntropyWins

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I heard the USSR was a great place to live.

ghoklebutter

But they had income equality...

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]I suppose this statement says as much about you as anything in this thread. You seem to have an emotionally driven hatred of socialism that is not rooted in any kind of logic. So I suppose trying to use logic to persuade you of otherwise is useless.EntropyWins

Of course I have a hatred of people being rewarded for being mediocre. Don't you?

That's all socialism does. It doesn't improve my life since I'm not mediocre. How can you persuade me to support something that will harm me?

I think it is much better for the life of a society to structure itself in a way that sustains its existence indefinitely, which (among many things) means preventing the wealth gap from becoming too large. Mind you, this does not mean giving people money for nothing, which is what you want to make socialism out to be.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

this does not mean giving people money for nothing, which is what you want to make socialism out to be.

ghoklebutter

I'll post this again, seeing as you guys must have missed my first post. Income Gap Myth

As long as rich people are not breaking the law I couldn't care less if the poor are living in sewers to be honest.Crunchy_Nuts

Humans are great.

In developed countries it is not over all income that determines the quality of it's life of the people but it's income income inequality. This is a fact.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/richard_wilkinson.html

Health, number of people in prison, lifespan, social mobility, highschool graduation rates, homicide, and many other things.

If you want to live the american dream, go to Denmank.

It doesn't matter if this income equality comes from taxes or just smaller differences in pay.

Guybrush_3

No thanks.

[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"]As long as rich people are not breaking the law I couldn't care less if the poor are living in sewers to be honest.Ilovegames1992

Humans are great.

Then how exactly will socialism benefit me? Give me a point by point analysis.

airshocker

I think it begins with an understanding that almost all members of a society are important to it, from fast food workers to the CEO. You obviously feel as though the fast food worker deserves to live in poverty for being "mediocre" (though I would like to point out that to many people being a cop would be a mediocre job). However, over the last few decades more and more Americans have been pushed into this disenfranchised group against their will. Obviously, this breeds animosity between the 'haves' and 'have nots'. Now, suppose this comes to a tipping point where all the 'have nots' refuse to participate in a society that they feel is not benefiting them. Then bad things happen, whether it be revolution, mass strikes that cripple an economy, or anything else that humans can concoct. This is not something I am making up, this is something we have seen repeated throughout history.

I think it is much better for the life of a society to structure itself in a way that sustains its existence indefinitely, which (among many things) means preventing the wealth gap from becoming too large. Mind you, this does not mean giving people money for nothing, which is what you want to make socialism out to be.

EntropyWins

We already believe all members of society are important. If we didn't, hospitals could turn the poor away from urgent medical care, or we would have no unemployment benefits. I believe everyone should start at the bottom and work their way up. I don't believe anybody is mediocre. I believe if you apply yourself, you can do almost anything you want to do, so long as you follow the law.

Those of us who do work and get utterly destroyed in taxes are being just as disenfranchised as those who don't think society is giving them a "fair shake". I should not have damn near 40% of my god damn income going to the government. That's ridiculous.

Socialism makes itself out to be that way. Not a single socialized system I've seen has rewarded hard work. Capitalism, for the most part, does.

Me, me, me. It's no wonder people think arguing with you is fruitless.

ghoklebutter

I'm a self-interested human being. I've never denied that.

More than three-quarters of working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in thetop40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991. Only 5 percent of those who were initially in the bottom quintile were still there in 1991, while 29 percent of those who were initially at the bottom quintile had risen to the top quintile.

Statistics from the US Treasury.

More than three-quarters of working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in thetop40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991. Only 5 percent of those who were initially in the bottom quintile were still there in 1991, while 29 percent of those who were initially at the bottom quintile had risen to the top quintile.

Statistics from the US Treasury.

SpartanMSU

Don't you post that filth here, damn pinko.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

I think it begins with an understanding that almost all members of a society are important to it, from fast food workers to the CEO. You obviously feel as though the fast food worker deserves to live in poverty for being "mediocre" (though I would like to point out that to many people being a cop would be a mediocre job). However, over the last few decades more and more Americans have been pushed into this disenfranchised group against their will. Obviously, this breeds animosity between the 'haves' and 'have nots'. Now, suppose this comes to a tipping point where all the 'have nots' refuse to participate in a society that they feel is not benefiting them. Then bad things happen, whether it be revolution, mass strikes that cripple an economy, or anything else that humans can concoct. This is not something I am making up, this is something we have seen repeated throughout history.

I think it is much better for the life of a society to structure itself in a way that sustains its existence indefinitely, which (among many things) means preventing the wealth gap from becoming too large. Mind you, this does not mean giving people money for nothing, which is what you want to make socialism out to be.

airshocker

We already believe all members of society are important. If we didn't, hospitals could turn the poor away from urgent medical care, or we would have no unemployment benefits. I believe everyone should start at the bottom and work their way up. I don't believe anybody is mediocre. I believe if you apply yourself, you can do almost anything you want to do, so long as you follow the law.

Those of us who do work and get utterly destroyed in taxes are being just as disenfranchised as those who don't think society is giving them a "fair shake". I should not have damn near 40% of my god damn income going to the government. That's ridiculous.

Socialism makes itself out to be that way. Not a single socialized system I've seen has rewarded hard work. Capitalism, for the most part, does.

*free-market capitalism*.

I'll post this again, seeing as you guys must have missed my first post. Income Gap Myth

SpartanMSU

Socialism makes itself out to be that way. Not a single socialized system I've seen has rewarded hard work. Capitalism, for the most part, does.

airshocker

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

I think it begins with an understanding that almost all members of a society are important to it, from fast food workers to the CEO. You obviously feel as though the fast food worker deserves to live in poverty for being "mediocre" (though I would like to point out that to many people being a cop would be a mediocre job). However, over the last few decades more and more Americans have been pushed into this disenfranchised group against their will. Obviously, this breeds animosity between the 'haves' and 'have nots'. Now, suppose this comes to a tipping point where all the 'have nots' refuse to participate in a society that they feel is not benefiting them. Then bad things happen, whether it be revolution, mass strikes that cripple an economy, or anything else that humans can concoct. This is not something I am making up, this is something we have seen repeated throughout history.

I think it is much better for the life of a society to structure itself in a way that sustains its existence indefinitely, which (among many things) means preventing the wealth gap from becoming too large. Mind you, this does not mean giving people money for nothing, which is what you want to make socialism out to be.

airshocker

We already believe all members of society are important. If we didn't, hospitals could turn the poor away from urgent medical care, or we would have no unemployment benefits. I believe everyone should start at the bottom and work their way up. I don't believe anybody is mediocre. I believe if you apply yourself, you can do almost anything you want to do, so long as you follow the law.

Those of us who do work and get utterly destroyed in taxes are being just as disenfranchised as those who don't think society is giving them a "fair shake". I should not have damn near 40% of my god damn income going to the government. That's ridiculous.

Socialism makes itself out to be that way. Not a single socialized system I've seen has rewarded hard work. Capitalism, for the most part, does.

So you don't think scandanavians countries reward hard work? Or even China? China has risen to be one the most powerful flourishing economies with a state controlled economy and few could argue to work harder than chinese people.kuraimen

Any country that has some form of capitalism/socialism reward hard work, but not as much as a country that favors capitalism more.

And we see how well those Chinese people are rewarded by their government...:lol: I can't honestly believe you used China as an example.

So you don't think scandanavians countries reward hard work? Or even China? China has risen to be one the most powerful flourishing economies with a state controlled economy and few could argue to work harder than chinese people.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]So you don't think scandanavians countries reward hard work? Or even China? China has risen to be one the most powerful flourishing economies with a state controlled economy and few could argue to work harder than chinese people.Crunchy_Nuts

:lol:

:lol:

Ilovegames1992

What's funny? He's absolutely correct.

What's the point in getting to such a position if you get treated the same as the people below you, so to speak?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]So you don't think scandanavians countries reward hard work? Or even China? China has risen to be one the most powerful flourishing economies with a state controlled economy and few could argue to work harder than chinese people.airshocker

Any country that has some forms of capitalism reward hard work, but not as much as a country that favors capitalism more.

And we see how well those Chinese people are rewarded by their government...:lol: I can't honestly believe you used China as an example.