A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'd tell him to do what he loves. Whatever it is.

That's really beautiful.

What's gotten into you, anyway? Did you go through this whole exercise with Ty just to get back to "do what you love / I'm responsible for myself"? Because that was the long way around.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
That's really beautiful.

What's gotten into you, anyway? Did you go through this whole exercise with Ty just to get back to "do what you love / I'm responsible for myself"? Because that was the long way around.

actually the most disturbing posts today are Ty's "my soccer kids are picking up the ball and running with it." and the response "make them play rugby."

You know it's Superbowl weekend right? Some kids on Ty's fotbal team want to play real football- American football- and the only advice from all the big brains here is to push them to some other communist sport? Fuck that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You have not. I said it was more complex and could not be generally described as merely "rising." Implicit in that is the proposition that it is not universally rising among all. I proved that by citing reports which showed that it was not rising in regard to all people. You said "when netted, yes it is." I said, no, even then, the netting is not accurate and cited Reynolds. You said Reynolds as a hack and cited Cowen as proof. I said "Well, Cowne is a reubttal, but he dosn't entirely disprove Reynolds." You said "again, Reynolds is a hack."

You know goddamned well your original post about income inequality was a loaded citation to a buzzword of the Left. I said, it's way more complex than the hysteria "income inequality" has been symbolic of when used by whores like Paul Krugman.

You backed down to a hyper-technical definitio of "income inequality," conceding its complexity, and that it is not universal, but merely "netted" (based on the assumption Cowen trumps Reynolds). If that's a loss for me, I'll take that any day.

If, in your world, "rising income inequality" means that all poor people are growing poorer and all rich people are growing richer, then I can see how you would come decide that lefties are tossing about buzzwords. If leaving that intellectual world is a win for you, then take choose the blue pill and stay on this board -- it'll be a win for both of us.

In the world we share, of course it's more complex. That does not mean that inequality is not rising, in the aggregate. Once again, I invite you to tell me where inequality is decreasing and why that's significant. The fact that you cannot or will not do so suggests that your interest in this complexity is purely tactical.*

I think I've shown that Reynolds is a hack, if being a hired gun for Cato on this issue isn't enough. Meanwhile, you call Krugman a "whore," though I haven't mentioned him. Krugman is paid by the NYT and Princeton University. Who do you think funds Cato?

* Or, you're suggesting that because inequality is sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing, it's not really changing. A sort of complexity argument for simpletons?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
That's really beautiful.

What's gotten into you, anyway? Did you go through this whole exercise with Ty just to get back to "do what you love / I'm responsible for myself"? Because that was the long way around.

Hank took me there. I can't say his hijacking was unwelcome.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Once again, I invite you to tell me where inequality is decreasing and why that's significant.

I will hazard a guess that in Cuba and Venezuela it is decreasing. And that is significant because it shows the error of socialism.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If, in your world, "rising income inequality" means that all poor people are growing poorer and all rich people are growing richer, then I can see how you would come decide that lefties are tossing about buzzwords. If leaving that intellectual world is a win for you, then take choose the blue pill and stay on this board -- it'll be a win for both of us.

In the world we share, of course it's more complex. That does not mean that inequality is not rising, in the aggregate. Once again, I invite you to tell me where inequality is decreasing and why that's significant. The fact that you cannot or will not do so suggests that your interest in this complexity is purely tactical.*

I think I've shown that Reynolds is a hack, if being a hired gun for Cato on this issue isn't enough. Meanwhile, you call Krugman a "whore," though I haven't mentioned him. Krugman is paid by the NYT and Princeton University. Who do you think funds Cato?

* Or, you're suggesting that because inequality is sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing, it's not really changing. A sort of complexity argument for simpletons?

Jesus, Ty. I cited that piece that said income inequality between white collar workers is decreasing, while among blue collar workers it is increasing.

Krugman is a King whore. The man's objectivity has ben gone since 2000. Every month the newly unemployed rolls don't meet his predictions, he accuses Bush of jockeying the numbers, or suggests its because the poor ware working in menial, atrocious jobs, the equivalent of being unemployed.

The simple answer is - yes, juxtaposing a mill worker and a CEO, the gap is widening. But that's a false juxtaposition which warps the conslusion the same way rainmakers' income warps PPP in a law firm. The parallels must be made more closely. I doubt you'll find a mill acountants' salary is grossly outpacing that of a foreman's. A better estimate of income inequality would be made by comparing the subtle different jobs in the middle. But tha doesn't create all that much of a gap does it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Jesus, Ty. I cited that piece that said income inequality between white collar workers is decreasing, while among blue collar workers it is increasing.

I'm sorry -- who said that? Where?

And if so, so what?

Krugman is a King whore. The man's objectivity has ben gone since 2000. Every month the newly unemployed rolls don't meet his predictions, he accuses Bush of jockeying the numbers, or suggests its because the poor ware working in menial, atrocious jobs, the equivalent of being unemployed.

I decline your invitation to drop our subject to kick Krugman around, both because I don't read him since the NYT put him behind the TimesSelect wall and because I'm enjoying kicking you around more.

The simple answer is - yes, juxtaposing a mill worker and a CEO, the gap is widening. But that's a false juxtaposition which warps the conslusion the same way rainmakers' income warps PPP in a law firm.

Why is that a false juxtaposition? The point of the debate is the gap is widening, not same people (e.g., rainmakers) make more.

The parallels must be made more closely. I doubt you'll find a mill acountants' salary is grossly outpacing that of a foreman's. A better estimate of income inequality would be made by comparing the subtle different jobs in the middle.

Why is that a "better" estimate? It's a pretty clear fact that the very rich have gotten richer much more than the rest of us in recent years. When the most striking changes are happening at the very top end, why do want to keep the focus solely on mill accountants and foremen?

Now you're not saying income inequality isn't happening. You're saying that you don't want to talk about it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Equality of outcome -- Everybody gets to go to Disney World for two weeks

Equality of opportunity -- Everybody gets two weeks paid vacation, no matter their pay grade, as long as they're full-time employees.

Equality of Opportunity - a good universal public education system

Equality of Outcome - Quota and Preferences in hiring, government contracts and I would argue college admissions.

If you screw up the Equality of Opportunity, you can't fix it by trying to change the quality of Outcome. You need to directly fix the the Equality of Opportunity.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Equality of Opportunity - a good universal public education system

Equality of Outcome - Quota and Preferences in hiring, government contracts and I would argue college admissions.

If you screw up the Equality of Opportunity, you can't fix it by trying to change the quality of Outcome. You need to directly fix the the Equality of Opportunity.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

You have a hard time when you don't disaggregate education spending, old-fashioned jobs programs, and political patronage.

Not that that's easy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I doubt you'll find a mill acountants' salary is grossly outpacing that of a foreman's.

better check quick. there aren't too many mills left.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Or not.

eta: Based on some additional messing around, the discrepancy would seem to have more to do with the peculiarities of the search engine than anything else, but I can't quite figure out the pattern. Still, it looks unlikely that anyone at the White House was messing with the search engine. Orwell can rest easy.

That fact that someone even noticed this and wrote about it is absurd. Even more pathetic are the people who picked up on it and repeated the story. Would this really be so earth shattering if it did happen? So this search engine doesn't work, they can always go to the WWW, can't they? Talk about a non issue. Just another irrelevent issue for people to get worked up about.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That fact that someone even noticed this and wrote about it is absurd. Even more pathetic are the people who picked up on it and repeated the story. Would this really be so earth shattering if it did happen? So this search engine doesn't work, they can always go to the WWW, can't they? Talk about a non issue. Just another irrelevent issue for people to get worked up about.

Don't care for Orwell much? Hank says Keep the Aspidistra Flying is quite good.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Equality of Opportunity - a good universal public education system

even if you had a good universal education system, wouldn't the kid's relaive background/family etc. impact just a tiny teeny bit on opportunity being equal or unequal?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't care for Orwell much? Hank says Keep the Aspidistra Flying is quite good.

I was going to suggest sebby get Jr. a copy when he's 16, but was afraid the reference was too obscure.