Still Hating America.

[Captain]

Originally posted by ironweed
Sebby:


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?

No, I'd bet he makes more than the Captain. I'd bet the dirt farmer makes more than the Captain.

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

I have no buddies in sales. I know quite a few disgruntled bartenders, though.

And they have no trouble with comparing themselves with anyone (captains, framers) up and down the pay scale, and drawing conclusions accordingly.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

No no no. It's because of those restraints that they get away with what they do. By example, the tax code protects the rich in endless ways.

Nobdoy's ever tried to let the market decide because CEOs don't want that. They'd rather lobby the govt to do their bidding.

There is no magic regulatory fix. A person who wants to will always get around the rules. In this case, he'll also pay to ensure loopholes allow it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
I have no buddies in sales. I know quite a few disgruntled bartenders, though.

And they have no trouble with comparing themselves with anyone (captains, framers) up and down the pay scale, and drawing conclusions accordingly.

I know a bartender who brings in $1000 a weekend and declares $200. Added to his other job, he might bring in $100k. I wonder where they put him on the income list.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Liberals think money's the quick fix to everything. They've turned PA into a disaster where half the lawyers work for the state, stealing money from political patronage gigs representing regulatory agencies, and the other half chase ambulances.

Meanwhile, my property taxes sit at $11,000 and the teachers' union complains it needs a pay hike. They get better health care than 70% of the state.

I deal with politicians in a business now. They ought to throw them into tree shredders, feet first. Theft, avarice, stupidity. It's amazing. If liberals only saw what these people do with the money their do-goodery gets for the state.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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.

Almost everyone thinks they're middle-class. Which is untrue for almost anyone posting here by any reasonable definition of "middle" in U.S. society.

e.g., I think that an income above $100K puts you in about the top 15% of the country. Over $200K -- top 8% or so. Whether or not that makes us "rich" depends on how you define it, and some people seem to have a visceral reaction against the word.

I don't feel rich, but I see my brothers and sister -- all of whom have small kids like I do, and all of whom have college degrees, and all of whom work white collar -- all making between $40K and $80K per year in family income (my guess) out in the Midwest.

They have money worries, we don't. Things like benefits packages matter to them in terms of feeling nailed to their job -- would never occur to me. We can choose day care and schools, etc. without really worrying about cost. For them its a big deal -- much more scrimping and relying on family. These are real differences. They're middle class, we're not.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

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

No but you dismissed anything put out by the WSJ Op ed page or the CATO intitue and defended the NYT, to back up your argument. In my opinion, you have those assumptions backward, and therefore discredited your argument when you made those claims.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.



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

Sebby said that this issue is being way oversimplified by most people. The terms are vague and therefore the statistics can be manipulated to support any vague assertion. Until you specifically define what you mean by income inequality, and what strata of society you are identifying, your statements are meaningless. Terms like rich, working class, the poor are all way to vague to have any meaning. Same goes for terms like "disproportionate rises in income, income gap, rise in income inequality etc.

In order to have a real discussion, you need to talk about quintiles of the entire population and how much their income is actually rising or falling. And then look at the hard numbers.

His point was proven by all the articles he posted and you posted.

Any article that doesn’t specifically describe how its numbers were reached, how they define a strata of society, how they are defining change (or widening gap) and display the actual numbers they were looking at, is about as useful as brass knuckles in a gun fight.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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

That clears it all up. Thanks, Burger!

The mean logarithmic deviation of income has steadily increased over the past 25 years. So who wins?

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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).

It looks like the single biggest jump was from 1992 to 1993, but that appears to be a result of data collection changes. Overall, though, it looks to me like the stability was pre 1980, with fairly steady increases since then.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That clears it all up. Thanks, Burger!

The mean logarithmic deviation of income has steadily increased over the past 25 years. So who wins?

S_A_M

All that matters is the first column, and that you have a basic understanding of the Gini coefficient (hint: skip the integrals).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
I have no buddies in sales. I know quite a few disgruntled bartenders, though.

if you quit bringing in Flower or Gatti to your local to order up Pisco what the fucks you would know fewer ones. A bartender pouring Irish shots or half and halfs is a hell of a lot happier than one trying to find a substitute for Mojito sauce.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Almost everyone thinks they're middle-class. Which is untrue for almost anyone posting here by any reasonable definition of "middle" in U.S. society.

e.g., I think that an income above $100K puts you in about the top 15% of the country. Over $200K -- top 8% or so. Whether or not that makes us "rich" depends on how you define it, and some people seem to have a visceral reaction against the word.

I don't feel rich, but I see my brothers and sister -- all of whom have small kids like I do, and all of whom have college degrees, and all of whom work white collar -- all making between $40K and $80K per year in family income (my guess) out in the Midwest.

They have money worries, we don't. Things like benefits packages matter to them in terms of feeling nailed to their job -- would never occur to me. We can choose day care and schools, etc. without really worrying about cost. For them its a big deal -- much more scrimping and relying on family. These are real differences. They're middle class, we're not.

S_A_M

SAM,

You can't compare income in disparate geographic locations. $100k in the Philly suburbs ain't shit. It's a king's ransom 200 miles west of Philly.

You're missing all of the costs we incur that they don't.

I'd love to agree with you. God I'd love to say I was rich.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
[your advertisement here]

Burger - I vote for "Gang Pluck" as the thread title, in honor of Ivins.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

If I want to fix the roof on my house, it's going to cost some money, but paying a roofer a lot of money doesn't necessarily mean he's going to do a good job.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
SAM,

You can't compare income in disparate geographic locations. $100k in the Philly suburbs ain't shit. It's a king's ransom 200 miles west of Philly.

You're missing all of the costs we incur that they don't.

I'd love to agree with you. God I'd love to say I was rich.

no you got problems I'm sure. we all do. but you aren't the guy getting fucked by the loss of jobs. there are Philly suburbs where 100k would make you the richest guy on the block. when i said talk to guys from your HS who didn't go to college, i meant people living in those suburbs, not yours.

Fuck Sebby, go read all the shit you post about Vodka brands. Do you know there are people who drink Smirnoff, or even Mohawk regularly?