Inequality much worse than most think

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Based on this question I'm assuming you don't believe in the right to own? I do love debates but I'm not going to get into a philosophical argument of the "deepest latrine" at this time I'm already behind on my work for today . Yah it's a BS response but maybe next time?

You were in the deepest latrine already with respect to your argument.

I assume that one's favorite color is in the visible spectrum, and I also assume that any other answer than red, blue or none is a refusal to answer. So be it.


And no you are not right to assume the false dichotomy:


Again you cannot both fail to state a position, and then to use well known fallacious arguments here. That will establish a pariah status.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I assume you didnt read what I wrote about carefully enough. I said 1500 for rent in a decent area and I am using Dallas, which as I also assume you have not been to.

If you want to rent anywhere near Uptown where all the young professionals live it is 1500+ for a one bedroom. The rent has skyrocketed the last 5 years.

I live just on the outskirts of Uptown on the "east side of Dallas" where many people refuse to live because you in a lot of areas you cant walk outside your apartment at least as a woman because many people have been raped/killed. Now I dont particularly buy into that thought process but most people would refuse to live there even though muggings/burglary happen in every area of town.

A few years ago a young SMU girl was raped in the morning hours while jogging here on the east side. I pay 1200 per month for rent and the rents are only increasing and that is living in a new apartment complex 5 years old.

Yea you can buy a new house for 250k that is 30 miles from downtown, who wants to live that far, pay those commuting costs, house costs/taxes/maintenance etc as a single person? Again the analysis is not rooted in reality.



I know very few people who can resist the temptation to consume above their means at any income level. So we should just doom them all because they consume more than they produce by adding more debt on their balance sheet because that is what the propaganda machine/government has TOLD people to do for the better part of 40 years?

Again the antecedents are missing.

A generation of people have now come to believe this is the natural order of things, that they should have high debt levels, buy that 350k house, new car etc.

I am not saying it is right but I can tell you that few people can resist that temptation as evidence the last 30 years of US consumerism and IF they stopped doing what you suggest they do then the economy will collapse.

Guess you are stuck in a catch 22 huh? Your business would collapse if everyone suddenly decided to start living within their means and NOT accumulating debt.

But get ready because that scenario is coming out of crisis and not choice.

God forbid that someone making 40k a year would have at least one luxury like an iphone, we should forsake them to the gates of hades for even thinking such a thing!

I understand I am questioning the beliefs and idealogical premise you have accepted and believed your entire life and it doesnt sit well.

And I never said it was anyones right to have these things compared to being a luxury.

Do you not find it odd that in this country where someone makes 140k per bat in the major leagues is totally fine because of his "GREAT production" ahem cough Arod cough but society and you are railing against someone who only makes 30k a year owning an iphone as a freaking luxury?

I find the entire premise of your argument presposterous and obtuse.

So you're living in downtown out of necessity, not because you want easy access to your friends, bars, and girls? Come on.

I think what's more preposterous here is that while you claim in a FIRE economy collapse my business will collapse (which it probably will) but that you earn a living in the financial services industry, unhappy with your success in the industry, yet continue to demonize the people in the industry.

In the bay area, California I lived off $1100/month my entire college career and my wife (gf at time) and I lived off $2500/month for years while working 100+ hour weeks to build our business. Your belief that Americans are unable to save and accumulate wealth through discipline and hardwork is simply incorrect.

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

You guys are right. It stinks around here.

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I'm curious why you think I'm interested in pushing up the threshold to the 1%. I'm not. I do like to understand the compensation of the American workforce and the wealth of American's for very selfish reasons but I'm not interested in distorting the 1%.

As for your allegiance to the poor, prodigal, and alienated that is a very admirable trait but it seems to be clouded by a distorted view of reality. You mention the nurse and school teacher. Here in California most nurses are very highly compensated. Starting is $60k which is above the median income and can reach over $100k based on seniority with nurse practitioners getting paid substantially more. As for school teachers the compensation is less - but throw in benefits and not having to work for 3 months out of the year it is not substantially so. And while the majority work hard to earn their comp there exists a good portion that just coast based on seniority. I would never characterize nurses or school teachers as poor and it's very both interesting and telling that you have done so.

As for "crushing poverty" I just don't see it. If you call what we are experiencing "crushing poverty" then I'm curious how you would describe conditions in the poorer places of the world. I agree that 90% of America is getting poorer due to our government (and QE) but poor is a relative term. The vast majority of Americans are still wealthy by global standards and those that were born into poverty and want to acquire wealth can still do so through hard work and perseverance.

I've been rich and I've been poor and rich again. I kept banging my head against the wall, I suppose, until at last I had enough of it and finally took time to understand what wealth meant to me and what exactly everybody meant by money. All I can say is that I did it with as much objectivity as I was capable. Which I presume by your standards isn't very much, jr. I can live with that. We do just fine and are grateful to know that there's enough for those we leave behind, if they're sensible.

So yes, all too guilty and all too telling. My view of reality is distorted, as you say. It's distorted by my life experience, by my present condition and by my anticipation of the future near and far. I suppose most fundamentally, by my perception of what my own life and quite timely death will mean. Just like you, jr.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

What justifies the right to own?

....third time I have asked such a simple question.

Based on this question I'm assuming you don't believe in the right to own? I do love debates but I'm not going to get into a philosophical argument of the "deepest latrine" at this time I'm already behind on my work for today . Yah it's a BS response but maybe next time?

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I can create equal absurdities on a principle just as easily by claiming North America by my native American ancestry and toss several hundred million off. Cannot I not?

It no claim, ke-mo-sa-bee.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

From my perspective it is as absurd or extreme as claiming the government is entitled to 100% of the revenue of said beach property because it is government that makes revenue possible. I am just pointing out the extreme counter example. I believe practicality lies somewhere in the middle. And I agree with your perception of where this argument is going.

What justifies the right to own?

....third time I have asked such a simple question.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

That does not answer my question.

I repeat my question.

What justifies the reason to own?

....I sense the argument of the deepest latrine, but I was wondering what you are saying explicitly.


I can create equal absurdities on a principle just as easily by claiming North America by my native American ancestry and toss several hundred million off. Cannot I not?

From my perspective it is as absurd or extreme as claiming the government is entitled to 100% of the revenue of said beach property because it is government that makes revenue possible. I am just pointing out the extreme counter example. I believe practicality lies somewhere in the middle. And I agree with your perception of where this argument is going.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Who said $100k? The household income in Orange County is $80k or so, this would donate a spouse making $44k and another spouse making $36k. You mention educating children - well doesn't this necessitate a couple? And didn't you have college roommates? I sure as hell wasn't living on my own when my income was $20k/year. And BTW I'm almost certain you can find housing for less than $1500/month in Dallas - as of 2 years ago you were able to buy a new construction 5000sqft house for $250k so I don't know where you are coming from with your numbers..

I assume you didnt read what I wrote about carefully enough. I said 1500 for rent in a decent area and I am using Dallas, which as I also assume you have not been to.

If you want to rent anywhere near Uptown where all the young professionals live it is 1500+ for a one bedroom. The rent has skyrocketed the last 5 years.

I live just on the outskirts of Uptown on the "east side of Dallas" where many people refuse to live because you in a lot of areas you cant walk outside your apartment at least as a woman because many people have been raped/killed. Now I dont particularly buy into that thought process but most people would refuse to live there even though muggings/burglary happen in every area of town.

A few years ago a young SMU girl was raped in the morning hours while jogging here on the east side. I pay 1200 per month for rent and the rents are only increasing and that is living in a new apartment complex 5 years old.

Yea you can buy a new house for 250k that is 30 miles from downtown, who wants to live that far, pay those commuting costs, house costs/taxes/maintenance etc as a single person? Again the analysis is not rooted in reality.

So why do you think someone has the right to own an Iphone 5 or Cable TV or a new car just because their neighbor has one? You've touched on one of the core problems with America but you don't seen to recognize the cause - you shouldn't be buying a new car, buying that 65" LCD TV, and getting into a $100/month phone contract if you're only making only the median income. You and quite a few members on this forum are seriously confused with rights compared to luxuries. In today's America we have a tremendous amount of luxuries available to us and a prudent person chooses these luxuries carefully. A median income worker can certainly choose a luxury, whether it's an Ipad, Cable TV, a new car, steak 3 times a week, or $150 scotch. But the problem with Americans is that want it all - and this produces debt. Consuming luxuries is a priviledge and not a right. Most debt slaves create themselves. Some of the most highly indebted people I know are families clearing over $200k. And certainly the Federal Reserve and the FIRE economy has helped to make the bottom 90% poorer - but your premise that the system prevents wealth accumulation is wrong.

I know very few people who can resist the temptation to consume above their means at any income level. So we should just doom them all because they consume more than they produce by adding more debt on their balance sheet because that is what the propaganda machine/government has TOLD people to do for the better part of 40 years?

Again the antecedents are missing.

A generation of people have now come to believe this is the natural order of things, that they should have high debt levels, buy that 350k house, new car etc.

I am not saying it is right but I can tell you that few people can resist that temptation as evidence the last 30 years of US consumerism and IF they stopped doing what you suggest they do then the economy will collapse.

Guess you are stuck in a catch 22 huh? Your business would collapse if everyone suddenly decided to start living within their means and NOT accumulating debt.

But get ready because that scenario is coming out of crisis and not choice.

God forbid that someone making 40k a year would have at least one luxury like an iphone, we should forsake them to the gates of hades for even thinking such a thing!

I understand I am questioning the beliefs and idealogical premise you have accepted and believed your entire life and it doesnt sit well.

And I never said it was anyones right to have these things compared to being a luxury.

Do you not find it odd that in this country where someone makes 140k per bat in the major leagues is totally fine because of his "GREAT production" ahem cough Arod cough but society and you are railing against someone who only makes 30k a year owning an iphone as a freaking luxury?

I find the entire premise of your argument presposterous and obtuse.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

So your family owns a stretch of beach on an island for centuries, your neighbors respect your ownership and then Spaniards come with their galleons and falconettes, claim ownership of the island, and pass 95% tax law and that's reasonable?

That does not answer my question.

I repeat my question.

What justifies the reason to own?

....I sense the argument of the deepest latrine, but I was wondering what you are saying explicitly.


I can create equal absurdities on a principle just as easily by claiming North America by my native American ancestry and toss several hundred million off. Cannot I not?

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

That is a particularly low blow considering the complete absence of your own justifications of your right to own. Though I can admire the sound tactical approach to force people to set up their arguments to defend while you proceed to attack them. However one cannot fail to bring something to the field entirely. Guard your flanks and use camouflage if you will , but you are in no position to criticize him because your attack is with an army of phantoms.

What supports the right to own?

So your family owns a stretch of beach on an island for centuries, your neighbors respect your ownership and then Spaniards come with their galleons and falconettes, claim ownership of the island, and pass 95% tax law and that's reasonable?

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

You're surprised?

Can you for one moment put yourself in my position? Here I am enjoying a moment or two with my coffee at what just might be the most erudite and open minded forum in god's green Internet and I'm presented with this:

"What gives the government the right to tax..."

Now I expect from you the same commitment to rigor and evidence as you of me and in that way I do unto you as I wish done unto me. By deciding to engage with you, I have given you some of my meager social capital on what amounts to a form of trust. I consider that a fundamental expression of respect and it's basically the only "thing" I have to offer you.

I suppose what I mean to say is that you don't present as an ignorant person or some idler looking to burn a few moment's time. I suppose I was as disappointed as you seem to be.

I apologize if I've offended you. It takes time to learn the nuances of each person's communication. I make that mistake constantly when I forget that I'm chatting with a person that's spent years and years corresponding with other folks here with 5,000 or even 9,000 posts. That's not even mentioning the staggering depth and breadth of professional and life experience exhibited here daily. I cringe at the knowledge that my ego is still so big that I sometimes log on without remembering that. Talk about ignorant. And all for $40 a month, you know what I'm saying?

So forgive me for missing the log in my eye, jr. I'm sorry. I have to remember that in perceiving we're also doing a fair amount of projecting, and that goes the same for you and me.

But to your point. You're a practical person, aren't you? It's a statement of fact that within the context of the broadest definition of what any of us here may choose to define as "civilization," we've had to live with the taxman. I suppose we will give it up around the same time as we give up the concept of god.

Is it fair to say that we've lived with taxation at least as long as we've lived with the concept of wealth? "Death & Taxes?" Humbly and with a genuine smile on my face as I type, does the phrase ring familiar?

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

America is not the rest of the world. Sure relatively in America poor people are fat (an actual negative in reality) and have smartphones/cars.

But you forget to mention the means to obtain those smartphones and cars. Debt

The worst four letter word you can use.

They would have none of those things if they couldnt use debt to get them. In these other countries you speak of the middle class and poor have little access to debt to increase their standard of living.

Too many people look at what is right in front of them and make a judgement call, as I feel you have done here. The antecedents to what you see today were created 70 years ago and will only get worse.

“Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan (1651) that “Ignorance of remote causes disposeth men to attribute all events to the causes immediate and instrumental: for these are all the causes they perceive.”

That's horsecrap. Take china for instance. Debt is easily available, you can borrow at 2% USD or 6.5% RMB last month. Yet Chinese shun debt. 50% down on a house. They don't buy Iphones despite being available they buy local phones. The carriers WANT to sell equipment financing plans but are unable to. Same goes with cars - who leases cars out there. It's our culture of debt not the lack or availability of it.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I'm surprised at your response. You are obviously intelligent enough to understand the problems with your position so I'm not going to bother with a response other than to say I was hoping for a bit more.

That is a particularly low blow considering the complete absence of your own justifications of your right to own. Though I can admire the sound tactical approach to force people to set up their arguments to defend while you proceed to attack them. However one cannot fail to bring something to the field entirely. Guard your flanks and use camouflage if you will , but you are in no position to criticize him because your attack is with an army of phantoms.

What supports the right to own?

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

No I live in Dallas, cheaper compared to the east and west coasts.

I was using "Dallas" values in my scenario.

The scenario you provide is one of "partnering" up with someone to pay less.

So everyone who doesnt make at least 100k a year should be forced to have roommates, drive an old car, not buy the goods and services that the P/C economy produces (iphone 5s) and not have cable TV jsut so that he can save an extra 2000 a year which may or may not (depending on the FIRE controlled markets) net him 300k at retirement?

So the most this guy can hope for is a roof over his head, little enjoyment of the richest most productive country in the world could provide and a subsistence living in retirement on 300k?

Jr listen to how you sound/write.

No one said a guy making 50k a year should be driving a Porsche but you seem to be oblivious to the mass psyche of the average person.

Why would they be happy if they saw everyone making 100k plus getting a brand new iphone, ipad, cars and providing private education for their children when they dont have cable tv, just a regular flip phone, forced to drive an old car that may or may not be reliable and cant provide the best education for their offspring?

The America that was sold to the people in the 1950s and 60s was one of ever increasing income, productivity and opportunity. Productivity has increased by leaps and bounds but income is stagnant which has been made up for by going into debt.

If Aristotle were around today he would say the American people were slaves/serfs. Debt is an ingenious substitute for the whip and chain of the slave driver.

And for refernce I am not a Democrat or left wing, I have never voted Democratic in any election ever and as of 2008 don't vote at all because both parties are playing for the same team.

I am sorry but it is not okay that in this nation that has all these resources and is self sufficient in every sector that our people should exist the way they do.

Something is horribly wrong when the nation that is the reserve currency issuer and reserve asset holder that is granted the exorbitant privilege of low interest rates and low costs of goods as a byproduct has a population that is 90% debt serfs. Their only ability to increase their consumption rate or standard of living results in going into debt OR getting a higher paying job.

And as we know, labor gets peanuts compared to capital/rentier class.

Who said $100k? The household income in Orange County is $80k or so, this would donate a spouse making $44k and another spouse making $36k. You mention educating children - well doesn't this necessitate a couple? And didn't you have college roommates? I sure as hell wasn't living on my own when my income was $20k/year. And BTW I'm almost certain you can find housing for less than $1500/month in Dallas - as of 2 years ago you were able to buy a new construction 5000sqft house for $250k so I don't know where you are coming from with your numbers.

So why do you think someone has the right to own an Iphone 5 or Cable TV or a new car just because their neighbor has one? You've touched on one of the core problems with America but you don't seen to recognize the cause - you shouldn't be buying a new car, buying that 65" LCD TV, and getting into a $100/month phone contract if you're only making only the median income. You and quite a few members on this forum are seriously confused with rights compared to luxuries. In today's America we have a tremendous amount of luxuries available to us and a prudent person chooses these luxuries carefully. A median income worker can certainly choose a luxury, whether it's an Ipad, Cable TV, a new car, steak 3 times a week, or $150 scotch. But the problem with Americans is that want it all - and this produces debt. Consuming luxuries is a priviledge and not a right. Most debt slaves create themselves. Some of the most highly indebted people I know are families clearing over $200k. And certainly the Federal Reserve and the FIRE economy has helped to make the bottom 90% poorer - but your premise that the system prevents wealth accumulation is wrong.