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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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, we can only go so far for your kids.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sure -- "smear" in the sense of linking to lengthy, detailed critiques of his work from a respected conservative economist and a lefty journalist. (To which your only response has been to post an op-ed the guy wrote in the WSJ.) With a "smear" like that, I don't have to resort to more conventional name-calling.



That is a far more interesting conversation than where you started today. The question is, why did you have to pretend that the gap between rich and poor isn't widening if you really think it isn't a bad thing.

1) If a poor person on average makes a hundred dollars a year and a rich person makes a thousand, and then ten years later a poor person makes two hundred and the rich person makes two thousand, do you consider the gap widening?

On a purely dollar term the gap is widening. That is where the statistics games begins that Sebby is talking about.

2) As long as the poor are getting richer, who cares what the rich are making. Isn't that just the politics of envy. In any system where the poor get richer the rich get even richer. Over the long term there has never been a successful system where the poor get richer and the rich get poorer or even stay the same. When you equalize incomes you just equalize the misery.

The focus should be on how the bottom two quintiles are faring.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) If a poor person on average makes a hundred dollars a year and a rich person makes a thousand, and then ten years later a poor person makes two hundred and the rich person makes two thousand, do you consider the gap widening?

On a purely dollar term the gap is widening. That is where the statistics games begins that Sebby is talking about.

Why do you think this is the essence of the disagreement -- such as it is -- about income inequality? And if so, why are conservative economists like Tyler Cowen and conservative politicians like President Bush fooled?

2) As long as the poor are getting richer, who cares what the rich are making. Isn't that just the politics of envy. In any system where the poor get richer the rich get even richer. Over the long term there has never been a successful system where the poor get richer and the rich get poorer or even stay the same. When you equalize incomes you just equalize the misery.

The focus should be on how the bottom two quintiles are faring.

This is a good question, one worthy of discussion on the new thread that's about to start.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you think this is the essence of the disagreement -- such as it is -- about income inequality? And if so, why are conservative economists like Tyler Cowen and conservative politicians like President Bush fooled?



This is a good question, one worthy of discussion on the new thread that's about to start.

hi

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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.

Well, 2. Search engines on many sites really suck, especially in the government. Google is far better. And people hack google to come up with weird shit too.


ETA: Suck it, Hank!

ETFA: Suck it, Ty!

And for the heck of it, Suck it, Penske!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hi

hi!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sorry -- who said that? Where?

And if so, so what?



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.



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



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.

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.

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.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


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?

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.

Sebby is right on about this stuff. 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.