Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[your advertisement here]

[Hank Chinaski]

originally posted by Sebby

Actually, Ty, I come from a pretty fucking middle class background, and the last few years haven't been so bad at all. In fact, with the excpetion of some silly tax planning which bit me a little this year, I'd have to say I've done alright (even this year)... Me, a middle class guy.

You don't make more than 100K? I had you pegged at least at 150K. Call up some people you went to HS with who didn't go to law school or college- find out how they did last year.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Census data on income distribution over time, using the Gini Coefficient

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie6.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sebby
It's in one of those 4. Feel free to take my refusal to search for it as an admission of its lack of validity.

I couldn't find it, but it sounds potentially interesting. I'm just not clear how you could sort out "white-collar workers" as a class.

Actually, Ty, I come from a pretty fucking middle class background, and the last few years haven't been so bad at all. In fact, with the excpetion of some silly tax planning which bit me a little this year, I'd have to say I've done alright (even this year)... Me, a middle class guy.

Aren't we all middle-class?

It's a false juxtaposition because what's happening to the poor and what's happening to CEOs is like saying the atmosphere on Mars is comparable to that of Venus's. When slivers of the population people effectively live on two entirely different planets, comparing them is simply absurd. I can no more compare mself to the captains of industry than I could a dirt framer. Wheher there is inequality of income should be measured against people in positions comparable to mine. That will never happen because there is so much income volatility in the middle class that any study should shredded. So, instead, people cite Joe Foreman against Bill Smith, CEO. It's dishonest.

If ("if") government policies are being used to make the rich richer (e.g., extending copyright) rather than improving the lot of the middle class (e.g., education), that's something that's relevant to me. I'm not sure why looking at these things in the aggregate is dishonest. CEO pay (e.g.) doesn't magically happen. If CEOs are taking in increased share of the pie, it's because the various restraints on their conduct have been weakened.

[Spanky]

By Burger

“Sure, but how do you measure equality of opportunity? For example, school spending in DC is higher per pupil than anywhere. On it's face, I'd say that's more than equal opportunity.”

Yes, liberals believe that more spending equals better schools. But you could double the spending of the D.C. school system and it would still suck. The truth is, school systems that are controlled by Republicans do more with less money. So true equality of opportunity would mean everyone would go to a school system run by Republicans.

Sebby:

I can no more compare mself to the captains of industry than I could a dirt framer.

Why not? I bet you make less than the captain and more than the dirt framer. Though the latter assumption depends on how complicated the framing is. It may be a union job?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you kidding? I trust the CATO institute much more than the NYT or anything put out by Princeton. And you think the WSJ Oped page is less ridiculous that the NYT's op ed page? I trust stuff more coming out of the local High School Newspaper than the NYT.

I haven't quoted the NYT op ed page. That was Sebby, too. But thanks for playing.

Sebby is right on about this stuff.

Which Sebby? The one with the Reynolds article from the WSJ, or the one with all of the other people who say that inequality is increasing? My and President Bush are with the second Sebby.

When you talk about inequality statistics you have to get right down to the numbers. Not summaries or conclusions based on numbers because the statistics are just way to easy to manipulate. The definitions and concepts are all way to vague.

You want to show me that the "gap is widening", or inequality is becoming more prounced (and both of the phrases are open to huge interpretation differences) then only the hard numbers, and where they come from, really have any relevence.

You mean your ipso facto isn't worth much? OK.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You don't make more than 100K? I had you pegged at least at 150K. Call up some people you went to HS with who didn't go to law school or college- find out how they did last year.

If Sebby doesn't make 100K I'll have to revise the level of resentment I feel for him. If I can it will mean I have more left over for resenting the seven-figure types on the board. You know who you are.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You don't make more than 100K? I had you pegged at least at 150K. Call up some people you went to HS with who didn't go to law school or college- find out how they did last year.

Much, much better. I'd be at the lower middle end of that scale. In previous years, even closer to lower.

You know what it costs to buy a house outside Philly these days?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes, liberals believe that more spending equals better schools.

I know many liberals, and I don't know any who believe that. If I hung with the kind of stupid liberals you hang with, I'd be a Republican activist too.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
If Sebby doesn't make 100K I'll have to revise the level of resentment I feel for him. If I can it will mean I have more left over for resenting the seven-figure types on the board. You know who you are.

100k is the new 50k.

If you want resentment, ask your buddies in sales how much they make, sans student loans.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
If Sebby doesn't make 100K I'll have to revise the level of resentment I feel for him. If I can it will mean I have more left over for resenting the seven-figure types on the board. You know who you are.

yeah but 7 figures in Detroit is more like 8 figures in NYC. Wait. that just makes you hate me more

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Census data on income distribution over time, using the Gini Coefficient

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie6.html

What are you trying to do, let facts get in the way of a good argument?

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears there was a significant increase in inequality in the 80s, during Reagan and Bush I, and relative stability in the 70s (during Nixon, Ford and Carter) and the 90s (during Clinton and the first little bit of Bush II).

I would have expected the increase to have kept going during the Clinton years, on the theory that there were a healthy number of rapidly made wealth folks in the late nineties).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky supporting me and Ty arguing with him.

Sadly, though I agree with Spanky's agreement with me, I have to admit after reading my posts the structuring and delivery of my argument leaves much to be desired. Not what I'd call articulate...

I need to start hanging out with Barrack Obama more.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I know many liberals, and I don't know any who believe that. If I hung with the kind of stupid liberals you hang with, I'd be a Republican activist too.

I know many liberals and most believe that. They are always complaining that California Schools don't get enough money. I think you have made the same complaint. The Democrats in the legislature here have argued that the schools don't get enough money. When Davis was governor, and the Dems controlled both branches of government, money was thrown at the schools and they didn't get any better. Now they wan't to throw more money but the Govenator won't let them unless the system is improved. They don't want to fix the system (well at least their Teacher Union overload won't let them). They won't allow any meaningful reform.