djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 23:21:55 GMT -5
"LOL! i didn't note that." I didn't either until I had to defend myself against your ruthless assault. I also didn't dig deeply into the report (on a laptop in a hotel with a slow internet connection), but I've seen these sorts of studies before. With studies like this, the conclusions are known before the study. The data is just a means to advance the agenda. why would the OECD care if we raised taxes?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2011 23:31:26 GMT -5
It was a global study. I'm not sure what you mean by "we".
It seems clear they want more income redistribution.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 23:41:15 GMT -5
It was a global study. I'm not sure what you mean by "we". It seems clear they want more income redistribution. why? of what benefit is it to the OECD?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2011 23:42:43 GMT -5
Re-read their motto.
You're questions are getting weird. I think it's time for me to go to sleep.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 23:48:41 GMT -5
Re-read their motto. You're questions are getting weird. I think it's time for me to go to sleep. if rest will improve your ability to answer questions, then please do. their motto is pretty much what the US says about it's foreign policy. it is pretty much what NATO says their policies. it is pretty much what the UN says about their policies. and that kinda makes sense, given that the US is a member of ALL of those organizations, and has a large say in what they do (and don't do). the conspiracy theories that bounce around this board are indefensible.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Dec 6, 2011 23:49:40 GMT -5
I'm fine with them making critical remarks but I'm just aware of their bias and don't believe they have adequate support for their claims once scrutinized.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 23:51:22 GMT -5
I'm fine with them making critical remarks but I'm just aware of their bias and don't believe they have adequate support for their claims once scrutinized. fine. prove it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2011 23:53:48 GMT -5
"the conspiracy theories that bounce around this board are indefensible."
I didn't suggest any sort of conspiracy. They want to make life better for everyone. They think wealth redistribution will make life better for everyone. How is that a conspiracy?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 23:58:42 GMT -5
"the conspiracy theories that bounce around this board are indefensible." I didn't suggest any sort of conspiracy. They want to make life better for everyone. They think wealth redistribution will make life better for everyone. How is that a conspiracy? i don't think they think that at all. they think that rising income inequality is a potential problem. and i think that is pretty obviously true, at a certain point.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 0:06:45 GMT -5
Again, their motto is "BETTER POLICIES FOR BETTER LIVES". And they say that marginal tax rates need to raised so the rich pay their fair share. They advocate things that they think will make for better lives.
"and i think that is pretty obviously true, at a certain point." See your statement from #67. This is the assumption that everyone makes. Where is the proof?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2011 0:07:23 GMT -5
bob- incidentally, i think i am following your logic, now. tell me if i got it right:
OECD wants to create more just societies the OECD believes that more egalitarian societies will further that goal therefore OECD believes that egalitarianism is central to their goal
is that the syllogism you are trying to get me to see?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2011 0:08:04 GMT -5
Again, their motto is "BETTER POLICIES FOR BETTER LIVES". And they say that marginal tax rates need to raised so the rich pay their fair share. they actually don't say that. they say that increasing marginal tax rates will decrease income disparity, which you have already, i believe, agreed is true.They advocate things that they think will make for better lives. "and i think that is pretty obviously true, at a certain point." See your statement from #67. This is the assumption that everyone makes. Where is the proof? the proof is the logical extreme that i have already mentioned, GINI = 1.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 0:10:48 GMT -5
"the proof is the logical extreme that i have already mentioned, GINI = 1." OK, then prove we're headed toward that extreme. You have two data points. You also have the logical problem that GINI = 1 is impossible because as you approach 1, total global income goes to zero.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2011 0:12:52 GMT -5
"the proof is the logical extreme that i have already mentioned, GINI = 1." OK, then prove we're headed toward that extreme. i thought that the OECD did a reasonable job of this. are you looking for proof outside of the OECD? i have posted it many times on the board. the GINI coefficient has been rising in the US for almost four decades.You have two data points. You also have the logical problem that GINI = 1 is impossible because as you approach 1, total global income goes to zero. no, it doesn't. GINI = 1 says that one person would have all income. this condition could roughly be described as "absolute feudalism".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 0:25:20 GMT -5
"no, it doesn't. GINI = 1 says that one person would have all income."
I know what it means. It's impossible. Think about it. Where is that one person getting his income from? Everyone else earns nothing. So in very short order, everyone else has nothing. If they have nothing, they buy nothing. Where is this one guy getting his income from? The closer you get to 1, the harder it is to get another step closer. The last step is infinitely difficult to take (i.e. by definition, GINI = 1 is actually impossible).
GINI = 1 is complete economic destruction.
"i thought that the OECD did a reasonable job of this"
No, they proved that the disparity has increased in the past.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 7, 2011 0:35:39 GMT -5
In the "good old days" after world war II, the U.S was really the only industrialized nation not affected by the ravages of war. ------------------- Huh? Canada is not an industrialized nation? News to me.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2011 0:36:44 GMT -5
"no, it doesn't. GINI = 1 says that one person would have all income." I know what it means. It's impossible. Think about it. Where is that one person getting his income from? Everyone else earns nothing. So in very short order, everyone else has nothing. If they have nothing, they buy nothing. Where is this one guy getting his income from? The closer you get to 1, the harder it is to get another step closer. The last step is infinitely difficult to take (i.e. by definition, GINI = 1 is actually impossible). GINI = 1 is complete economic destruction. your point is well taken. which is probably why we don't see GINI's much higher than 0.5.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 7, 2011 0:38:13 GMT -5
Plus the U.S is at a disadvantage when being compared to other countries as we try to education every child where most other countries don't. --------------------------- Do you have any proof that most other countries don't education <sic> their children? I'd like to see some stats on that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2011 0:39:26 GMT -5
"i thought that the OECD did a reasonable job of this" No, they proved that the disparity has increased in the past. i thought you said "headed in that direction". i think that is pretty clear. does that mean that we won't reverse course? of course not. but there is no indication that we have reached that point. the trends that lead us here are largely unchanged. the reasonable expectation is that they will continue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 1:08:37 GMT -5
"i thought you said "headed in that direction". "
Probably poor choice of words, then. Sorry.
My point is that it's easy to show that inequality is increasing. But the idea that this is a bad thing or that the solutions proposed by the OECD will make peoples lives better are just assumptions.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2011 1:40:56 GMT -5
"i thought you said "headed in that direction". " Probably poor choice of words, then. Sorry. My point is that it's easy to show that inequality is increasing. But the idea that this is a bad thing or that the solutions proposed by the OECD will make peoples lives better are just assumptions. i agree with your last point. however, i think that everyone agrees that wide disparities of income are to be avoided. high disparities makes for a more fragile social order, which is bad for both rich and poor. it is also closely correlated with mortality and mental health issues. because of that, the morality of simply ignoring or brushing it off it is questionable. the real question becomes WHEN is it a problem? and of course, there is no clear answer for that. it varies from society to society. but the last time society broke down in the US, our GINI index was approximately where it stands today. that concerns me.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Dec 7, 2011 8:04:26 GMT -5
Thing is, the OP cites an article that stresses income disparity worldwide, not just in the US. It's important, I think, to look at it from that perspective rather than insist on being so insular that we see only our own nest. IMHO, it's a silly perspective at best. Income comparison between us and most of the rest of the world is like comparing an Model T to a Lamborghini. Sure they're both cars and the both have 4 tires but that's about where the similarities end. OT ETA: has Virgil been messing with the boards again? The quoted lines are tiny print again.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 7, 2011 9:22:35 GMT -5
i agree with your last point. however, i think that everyone agrees that wide disparities of income are to be avoided. high disparities makes for a more fragile social order, which is bad for both rich and poor. it is also closely correlated with mortality and mental health issues. because of that, the morality of simply ignoring or brushing it off it is questionable. the real question becomes WHEN is it a problem? and of course, there is no clear answer for that. it varies from society to society. but the last time society broke down in the US, our GINI index was approximately where it stands today. that concerns me.
The GINI index has been fairly flat for nearly 20 years or more. A chart you posted many weeks ago, showed the identical data in the two charts I posted earlier in this thread. The idea of a fragile social order only exists in the minds of delusional and psychotic elitists.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 7, 2011 12:23:10 GMT -5
Income Inequality: Babe Ruth vs. Alex Rodriguez In 1927 when Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs and set the single-season record that lasted until 1961, he made $70,000 playing for the New York Yankees. That would be equivalent to a salary in today's dollars of only $911,000. In 1930 and 1931, Babe Ruth was paid $80,000 by the Yankees, which was the most he earned in a single year, and equivalent to only slightly more than $1 million today. In contrast, the average major league baseball player's salary was nearly $3.1 million this year, or three times more than super-star Babe Ruth made at the peak of his career, adjusted for inflation. Is that unfair or not? And isn't that evidence of rising income inequality over time that average players now make more than the superstars of the past, and today's highly-paid superstars like Alex Rodriguez make salaries ($32 million) that are more than 30 times higher than a superstar of the 1920s and 1930s like Babe Ruth? And it's highly likely the share of baseball payrolls going to the top 1, 5 or 10% of the players has also increased over time, as incomes have become more concentrated among the top players. For example, Alex Rodriguez's salary represented 16% of the Yankee's $202 million payroll this year as the highest paid player, and in 1988 the highest-paid Yankee, Jack Clark, earned a salary of $2 million that represented only 11% of the team's $18.9 million payroll that year. Baseball's "rich" (top 1%) just keep getting richer and richer? Just ask yourself this question: As a superstar with world-class athletic ability, would you rather be marketing your talent in 1930 America like Babe Ruth, or in 2011 America like Alex Rodriguez? Clearly Alex Rodriguez has the advantage of selling his superstar abilities in a much larger (greater ticket sales), much more globalized sports marketplace with increased competition from talented players around the world, along with much higher salaries to reflect the realities of modern MLB. As part of both society's 1% and "MLB's 1 percent," Alex Rodriguez deserves to make more income today than Babe Ruth made in the 1920s and 1930s when he was part of the "MLB 1 percent" of that era. But it's also the case that MLB's lowest-paid, average-paid players, and in fact "the entire MLB 99%," are also better off today in terms of income than their counterparts of the past. Maybe there's a lesson here about rising income inequality. Whether it’s in professional sports or in society as a whole, perhaps rising income inequality over time is a natural and expected outcome of increasingly competitive labor markets and the expanded opportunities that come from larger and increasingly competitive global markets. And those same competitive forces that lead to greater income inequality in both the MLB and the overall economy over time also help to make all MLB players and all Americans better off year after year, just not at exactly the same rate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 12:54:04 GMT -5
Great analogy, SF.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 7, 2011 13:13:46 GMT -5
Thanks Investor-Bob....
I've been grieving over the loss of Jose Reyes from the Met's to the Marlins...sad day for NYC baseball.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Dec 7, 2011 13:30:03 GMT -5
If they take my Pujols away, I will boycott Florida. Right after our Disney Cruise next Spring.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 7, 2011 14:19:20 GMT -5
If they take my Pujols away, I will boycott Florida. Right after our Disney Cruise next Spring. Pujos was insane during the playoffs.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2011 21:00:41 GMT -5
i agree with your last point. however, i think that everyone agrees that wide disparities of income are to be avoided. high disparities makes for a more fragile social order, which is bad for both rich and poor. it is also closely correlated with mortality and mental health issues. because of that, the morality of simply ignoring or brushing it off it is questionable. the real question becomes WHEN is it a problem? and of course, there is no clear answer for that. it varies from society to society. but the last time society broke down in the US, our GINI index was approximately where it stands today. that concerns me. The GINI index has been fairly flat for nearly 20 years or more. that is because the GINI index moves in a very narrow range, generally between 0.20 and 0.50. there have only been three countries that have fallen outside that range in a 50 year survey period: Bulgaria, Mexico and Brazil.A chart you posted many weeks ago, showed the identical data in the two charts I posted earlier in this thread. that is true, except in two respects. first of all, the scale on your chart assumes that the GINI falls outside the range i mentioned above for Western nations, which is false. the second is that it presumes that 1994 is a good place to start the analysis. it isn't. the period between 1992 and 1994 was unusual in the US, as the GINI index rose nearly 3 cents. that is a HUGE shift in a very short period. 1994 was the highest GINI index for the US in the post WW2 period, and significantly higher than the baseline in the previous decade, and well above the low of less than 0.35 that was attained in 1968. the shift from 0.35 in 1968 to 0.45 in 2008 is statistically very significant. if you or anyone else wants to understand what that shift means in terms of income, i can illustrate the math in another post or thread.The idea of a fragile social order only exists in the minds of delusional and psychotic elitists. thanks for conceding you have lost the argument by resorting to ad hominem. i know that is what you are doing, because you ignore, and sometimes even encourage to the regular Beckesque rants about how the US is descending into socialism- rants that make my mild concerns expressed on this thread seem like a relaxing day at the spa by comparison- while coming after every post that dares to challenge your cherry picked data like a rabid chihuahua.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2011 21:03:47 GMT -5
not really. pro sports has succeeded because of an exceptionally robust collective bargaining system which is absent in blue collar America. this is mentioned specifically in most studies about why income disparity is increasing here.
|
|