Ray Jay wrote:I just don't understand where Ricky and Danvion are coming from. I care deeply about the poor, and in particular the working poor. BTW, I've worked on a food assembly line, as a driver for a women's safety service, in a factory fixing ovens (with many cockroaches), as a bookkeeper in a textile factory (on 137th St. in the Bronx), stocking frozen food in a freezer, as an assistant truck driver, as a busboy, as a clerk in a convenient store, etc.

I just know from experience that the majority of the policies that Ricky and Danivon support are not particularly helpful, and often harmful. Why do they have to assume that someone with a different view on economics is evil or evil-intentioned? This is about their issues, not mine.

I'm with you.

I worked at a 7/11 and was held up at gunpoint. I worked in a warehouse. I worked in phone sales. I worked as a box boy. I worked in a clean environment, essentially scrubbing dishes. I was so poor when I was in the Army, I couldn't afford any kind of car. I grew up in a lower rung of the middle class--a very low rung.

Ditto for me, too.

Ray Jay wrote:I just don't understand where Ricky and Danvion are coming from. I care deeply about the poor, and in particular the working poor. BTW, I've worked on a food assembly line, as a driver for a women's safety service, in a factory fixing ovens (with many cockroaches), as a bookkeeper in a textile factory (on 137th St. in the Bronx), stocking frozen food in a freezer, as an assistant truck driver, as a busboy, as a clerk in a convenient store, etc.

I just know from experience that the majority of the policies that Ricky and Danivon support are not particularly helpful, and often harmful. Why do they have to assume that someone with a different view on economics is evil or evil-intentioned? This is about their issues, not mine.

Please show where I make such an assumption before telling me what I think.

KTHANKSBYE

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I just don't understand where Ricky and Danvion are coming from. I care deeply about the poor, and in particular the working poor. BTW, I've worked on a food assembly line, as a driver for a women's safety service, in a factory fixing ovens (with many cockroaches), as a bookkeeper in a textile factory (on 137th St. in the Bronx), stocking frozen food in a freezer, as an assistant truck driver, as a busboy, as a clerk in a convenient store, etc.

I just know from experience that the majority of the policies that Ricky and Danivon support are not particularly helpful, and often harmful. Why do they have to assume that someone with a different view on economics is evil or evil-intentioned? This is about their issues, not mine.

Please show where I make such an assumption before telling me what I think.

KTHANKSBYE

Danivon:

I it almost as if RJ is unaware of the myriad people who work hard and don't end up making much money...

KWELCOMEBYE

You do know what "It is almost as if X" means, right? It doesn't mean the same as "X".

However, here's the thing I was getting at: It's all very well to concentrate on the people for whom hard work leads to success, and "show" that means the system is working. But you have to look at it all in the round. Perhaps a more statistical analysis.

Are we seeing a lot of social mobility, which would be a good sign that merit rather than status makes a difference to outcomes?

Are we seeing real median incomes increasing in line with productivity and GDP, which would be a good sign that in the aggregate work is being rewarded for it's effort and worth?

Yes, there are hard working professionals who succeed. And there are also people who are successful despite no real effort - they inherit, they have luck, whatever. And just as there are lazy people who fail, there are also those who work hard and do not.

And you clearly know that's the case. The question is not whether such categories exist or not, it's really about how significant they are in terms of whether the socio-economic system is meritocratically fair

We have all had menial jobs, I suspect. Some of us come from a background where that is the case for most people, not just people who are going to be able to move onwards and upwards. There are two things that the working poor need - jobs that pay a decent wage, and support in the case that their jobs disappear.

rayjay

I just don't understand where Ricky and Danvion are coming from. I care deeply about the poor,

I'm sure you do...

Rayjay

I just know from experience that the majority of the policies that Ricky and Danivon support are not particularly helpful, and often harmful.

Perhaps you could actually offer evidence that shows that the policies on offer are as you say... after all, your personal experience may be representative of how things work.
For instance, have you lived in Sweden?

Rayjay

Why do they have to assume that someone with a different view on economics is evil or evil-intentioned?

I'm sure you are well intentioned. I also think you are unwilling to accept that things you have assumed for most of your life aren't exactly as you think.
From your previous post, it may be that you are trying to argue that anyone can make it in the USA. However the fact that anyone can, doesn't mean that it is an ordinary occurrence. Rather its exceptional that someone move from being born in low income family to a high income family.
Social Mobility is lousy in the USA. Its rally good in places with social programs like Sweden and Denmark. And in places with more equal income and wealth distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mo ... ntries.jpg

I'm willing to be proven wrong..... But not by claims of personal experience. Its too big a world for one persons narrow experience to provide substantial insight into a big problem.

rickyp wrote:Social Mobility is lousy in the USA. Its rally good in places with social programs like Sweden and Denmark. And in places with more equal income and wealth distribution.

I have some suggestions:

1. Why don't YOU live in a socialist country and leave us alone?
2. Why do you believe social mobility is limited in the US, when we know it's not? There is no limit that is not self-imposed. Show me all the studies you want. What they can't measure is "ability." What they do measure is what people actually do. The two are not the same.
3. Who the blank wants to live in Denmark? 180% tax on cars? Are you kidding me? You can keep Denmark.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Social Mobility is lousy in the USA. Its rally good in places with social programs like Sweden and Denmark. And in places with more equal income and wealth distribution.

I have some suggestions:

1. Why don't YOU live in a socialist country and leave us alone?

I seem to recall there is this concept known as "freedom of speech".

2. Why do you believe social mobility is limited in the US, when we know it's not? There is no limit that is not self-imposed. Show me all the studies you want. What they can't measure is "ability." What they do measure is what people actually do. The two are not the same.

So poor Europeans are more "able" than poor Americans? Do you have evidence and data to show what mobility studies are missing? And of course there are limits to people's lives that are not self-imposed. Laws, physical strength, mental acuity, quality of education provided as a child, etc etc.

3. Who the blank wants to live in Denmark? 180% tax on cars? Are you kidding me? You can keep Denmark.

The Danes quite like it, I hear. And it is, after Switzerland and Iceland, the third happiest country in the world. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32443396

danivon wrote:The Danes quite like it, I hear. And it is, after Switzerland and Iceland, the third happiest country in the world. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32443396

Good for them!

danivon wrote:You do know what "It is almost as if X" means, right? It doesn't mean the same as "X". .

Yes, I do. But your intent was clear. Saying almost doesn't give you a free pass.

However, here's the thing I was getting at: It's all very well to concentrate on the people for whom hard work leads to success, and "show" that means the system is working. But you have to look at it all in the round. Perhaps a more statistical analysis.

I was reacting to this malicious characterization that there is 1% and then there is everybody else. This notion that 1% controls everything and the other 99% are exploited is ridiculous.
I've listed other people who are in the 10%. There are a lot of people in the 50% after that who do very well by our system. And there are many working poor who are fine with it too.

Are we seeing a lot of social mobility, which would be a good sign that merit rather than status makes a difference to outcomes?

Are we seeing real median incomes increasing in line with productivity and GDP, which would be a good sign that in the aggregate work is being rewarded for it's effort and worth?

Yes, there are hard working professionals who succeed. And there are also people who are successful despite no real effort - they inherit, they have luck, whatever. And just as there are lazy people who fail, there are also those who work hard and do not.

And you clearly know that's the case. The question is not whether such categories exist or not, it's really about how significant they are in terms of whether the socio-economic system is meritocratically fair

Yes, yes, it is incredibly complicated; Sometimes it's fair, and sometimes it's not, in either direction. But my experience is that on the whole, the government will make it worse, and not better. There has been some good stuff, but a lot of bad government policy along the way. And the left recommends a lot of silly stuff. Telling people that it is the system's fault is not gonna help. We can spend the next 1,000 years arguing this, but what is the point?

Speaking of which, Ricky, I'm going to ignore you from now on. That's the nicest way for me to put it. If you continue to goad me I won't be nice about it.

Danivon, I'm happy to continue to have a dialogue with you. I do like you and think you are a bright guy, brighter than me if truth be told. (But that doesn't mean you are right.)

I do find it ironic that both Brad and DF benefited from liberal policies even though they would never , ever admit it. Pensions for government workers came only after private sector unions fought ( literally) for them.

And I do appreciate the value of competition. At least for men that is a pretty important value, the ability to compete and win at whatever we do. The NFL is a great example, where every team is competing to gain an advantage over other teams. But the rules are fair and teams that win do so because they are better run, not because they have an unfair advantage.

But that is not generally true. While people definitely like to compete, they probably even more like to gain an unfair advantage (like the Patriots), get something for nothing or little, make easy money. And that is where I find conservative economic ideology to be completely deficient. Monopolies? Who cares if companies are preventing companies from competing. Unequal bargaining power for workers? Just allows for lower labor costs. Citizens United allowing corporations the unfettered ability to pump money into politics? Corporations are people too. Giving money at zero interest to banks so that they can charge 30%? That's just good business!

Part of fair competition for societal resources is fair and equal competition. And,yes, there is never going to be completely fair and equal competition. But high tuition costs are an impediment to fair competition. I am going to make a wild guess that higher incomes are correlated with going to the Ivy League. I said this without looking...but looking at Yale 69% of its freshman came from families making $120K a year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar ... ty/284076/

$120K a year is in the top 13%. So, 69% of Yale freshman came from the top 13%. Ah, yes, equal opportunity. Maybe people making under 120K are just dumb and therefore their kids are dumb, and that explains it....

So we have the issue of whether the competition for societal resources is fair. Next, we have the issue of proportionality. Fine, you're the best you contribute something to the societal pie and maybe that you get back what you put in plus a healthy profit because you are one of the winners. Ok, fine. How much should you get back from what you're contributing--twice, ten times 100 times or if a hedge fund manager 55,000 times the average person? why would we have tax, trade, labor, business regulation, lax monopoly regulation policies, etc that encourage this? Yes, capital is required for a modern economy to run but capital is a chit for past wealth created by a society. The person who owns it may have done nothing to earn it. Yet, our system is increasingly rewarding capital over labor.

The changes don't happen overnight. And Democrats have been able to hold the line to a certain extent. There are a lot of people in the middle-class who still get pensions, who had good careers, and they're ok. But what's it going to look in 10-20 years? Are there going to be enough decent jobs to satisfy a better-educated work force? How is retirement going to look? How about the safety net? How about infrastructure? The nightmare scenario is where the rich just pay for their own stuff for their gated communities and fight for lower taxes so as to not pay for public infrastructure that they don't need.

freeman3 wrote:I do find it ironic that both Brad and DF benefited from liberal policies even though they would never , ever admit it. Pensions for government workers came only after private sector unions fought ( literally) for them.

Not my union.

And, we have a (largely) employee-funded and overseen fund, which is well-funded and healthy--particularly compared to CALPERS. In fact, the biggest concern is CA trying to raid our fund.

Again, if you want guaranteed equal outcomes, vote for the most Maoist candidate you can find on the ballot.

The idea that Ivy League schools are the key to a successful life is one you are welcome to. I would have to "fight the power" at Yale, so I'm just as happy to not have gone there.

fate

2. Why do you believe social mobility is limited in the US, when we know it's not?

I point to economic statistics and studies. Hard evidence.
You point to your belief.
You seem to believe a lot of things without evidence.

rayjay

If you continue to goad me I won't be nice about it.

Goading you?
I've asked you to back your claims up with genuine evidence. And the exercise in finding such you find too challenging?

danivon wrote:here's the thing I was getting at: It's all very well to concentrate on the people for whom hard work leads to success, and "show" that means the system is working. But you have to look at it all in the round. Perhaps a more statistical analysis.

Are we seeing a lot of social mobility, which would be a good sign that merit rather than status makes a difference to outcomes?

Are we seeing real median incomes increasing in line with productivity and GDP, which would be a good sign that in the aggregate work is being rewarded for it's effort and worth?

Thanks Dan. It's vastly more meaningful to look at data, and make an informed decision using objective criteria than basing one's stance on personal situations and memories, especially since those memories occurred during conditions that no longer exist. Those personal experiences are more visceral, of course, but that doesn't mean they provide a corollary in the current world.

rickyp wrote:fate

2. Why do you believe social mobility is limited in the US, when we know it's not?

I point to economic statistics and studies. Hard evidence.

No, you believe "economic statistics and studies" that fail to take into account things like individual initiative. No one is "destined to fail" in the United States.

You point to your belief.
You seem to believe a lot of things without evidence.

Keep carrying your pictures of Chairman Mao.

In other words, you keep your socialist beliefs. I'll bitterly cling to my freedom.