EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7091
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
The idea that its pointless to get any qualification or benefit to yourself because its pointless because everyone would have it is just silly. Kwark is simply stating that we aren't living in a grimdark fantasy world where you can't do anything to better yourself with just 3 hours a week. | ||
KwarK
United States43598 Posts
On March 10 2017 09:01 ticklishmusic wrote: What are the inputs for the $2.5m (number of visits per week/month, pay per visit, annual yield? Compound interest is great, but that seems kinda hard to believe. Out of the office now but I think I used $4500 year 1 base, 2% annual increases, 7% annual growth and compounded over 49 years. Compound interest is pretty imba. Edit: forgot to take into account the Saver's Credit. That's another $1000/year extra the government contributes for you as a thank you for saving for your retirement. That'll push it over 3 mil easy. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On March 10 2017 09:07 Sermokala wrote: I think people are confusing Kwarks Micro and macro level arguments as being the same thing. Anything particular on a micro scale is simply an example for the macro scale. No, they're a bit confused because it's somewhat of a non sequitor. It'd fit perfectly in if this were a thread where I asked what to do to improve my own life- I'm working part time in an industry that will die in a couple of years, trying to decide whether it makes more sense to try for a graduate degree to specialize (specifically analytics, as my bachelor's is just a general studies one) or pursue more entry level work, etc. But saying "everyone has opportunities to improve themselves" is somewhat irrelevant to a politics conversation. No one is saying it's not true in the first place? The only way it's relevant on a systemic level is if your argument is that every poor person could leave poverty if they exercised their opportunities - the bootstraps argument. But I don't think he's making that argument | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 10 2017 08:36 KwarK wrote: Not a bad analogy, if generalized. 1+1=3 because Trump asserts the sum is two, and we all know that's exactly like his Russian owners want to happen. Resist addition and illegally leak classified info until he's forced to admit they add to three. Breaking news. Stepping back a bir, the twin stories of Trump is illegitimate because fake news and Russia hacks have reduced to Russianis evil so contacts are automatically bad. Fake news was too easy to push back on. Russia at least has an ongoing investigation, despite factually no confirmed coordination as of mid January. Rolling Stone did an interesting wrapup of everything that stinks on the Russia angle. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
CIA Statement on Claims by Wikileaks March 8, 2017 We have no comment on the authenticity of purported intelligence documents released by Wikileaks or on the status of any investigation into the source of the documents. However, there are several critical points we would like to make. CIA’s mission is to aggressively collect foreign intelligence overseas to protect America from terrorists, hostile nation states and other adversaries. It is CIA’s job to be innovative, cutting-edge, and the first line of defense in protecting this country from enemies abroad. America deserves nothing less. It is also important to note that CIA is legally prohibited from conducting electronic surveillance targeting individuals here at home, including our fellow Americans, and CIA does not do so. CIA’s activities are subject to rigorous oversight to ensure that they comply fully with U.S. law and the Constitution. The American public should be deeply troubled by any Wikileaks disclosure designed to damage the Intelligence Community’s ability to protect America against terrorists and other adversaries. Such disclosures not only jeopardize U.S. personnel and operations, but also equip our adversaries with tools and information to do us harm. Source Wikileaks itself is being a complete tease at the moment and hasn't given us much more to work with. Maybe it will be more news when they do. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43598 Posts
On March 10 2017 09:01 WolfintheSheep wrote: I mean, you're basically arguing that everyone in the country can collectively increase the money in the country by a sizable amount without any economic effect. And you're basically arguing that the current level of GDP per capita is ordained by God and that any deviation from it would have catastrophic consequences. The Japanese work more hours than Americans, the French work fewer, both seem to be fine. The US does not have a command economy, the current level of productivity and the current allocation of employment etc are completely arbitrary and subject to change. If people started brown bagging lunches instead of going out then Jimmy Johns would lose business and grocery stores would gain business but the economy would be fine. Likewise if people started working more hours, improving their skills, taking better care of their health etc. I mean hell, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion we shouldn't cure diseases in case the doctors lose their jobs. There is no reason to suppose that the current allocation of resources is virtuous, no more than we should suppose that two legs and two arms is the natural state of affairs for animals. It is neither good nor bad, it just is. A decrease to French levels of work would have an economic effect but that isn't an argument against it, after all, for the French an increase to American levels of work would have an economic effect. If we follow your argument to its conclusion the arbitrary outcome of any set of conditions is deemed virtuous. The economy wouldn't implode if people created more value. It also wouldn't implode if people created less. The current level is arbitrary and subject to change. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43598 Posts
On March 10 2017 09:16 Danglars wrote: Not a bad analogy, if generalized. 1+1=3 because Trump asserts the sum is two, and we all know that's exactly like his Russian owners want to happen. My point was that if the conclusion is disputed then for some reason people assume that all evidence presented in support of it is disputable, rather than identifying the specific error that causes the conclusion to be wrong. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 10 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote: The Japanese work more hours than Americans, the French work fewer, both seem to be fine. I'm really trying to figure out if you understand the micro vs macro argument, because this proves my point and not yours. People in Japan work significantly more hours than Americans, and as a whole have a roughly equivalent financial curve in their society. So yeah, an individual could do better by working harder. If society did the same, the national economy will generally balance it back to the current status quo. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
And you can make more money, but live a shittier life for that money, under those conditions. So it's almost like you don't get more money even if you make more. If it weren't true that there were a lot of people who are terrible with money in our country it would probably be harder to move up in the world. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
On March 10 2017 09:13 Nevuk wrote: No, they're a bit confused because it's somewhat of a non sequitor. It'd fit perfectly in if this were a thread where I asked what to do to improve my own life- I'm working part time in an industry that will die in a couple of years, trying to decide whether it makes more sense to try for a graduate degree to specialize (specifically analytics, as my bachelor's is just a general studies one) or pursue more entry level work, etc. But saying "everyone has opportunities to improve themselves" is somewhat irrelevant to a politics conversation. No one is saying it's not true in the first place? The only way it's relevant on a systemic level is if your argument is that every poor person could leave poverty if they exercised their opportunities - the bootstraps argument. But I don't think he's making that argument But you're conflating the two situations to be anywhere near the same. What someone advocates on a macro level can be completely different then what they advocate on a micro level and they're not at all hypocritical because they're complexly different realms of thought. Its apples and chickens. On March 10 2017 09:47 LegalLord wrote: And AFAIK the working schedule in Japan contributes no small part to their demographics crisis. Who wants to have a family when it means you get a shitty life in the process? And you can make more money, but live a shittier life for that money, under those conditions. So it's almost like you don't get more money even if you make more. If it weren't true that there were a lot of people who are terrible with money in our country it would probably be harder to move up in the world. I'm pretty agreed on it being more of a reverse Malthusian argument when its too expensive to have children vs their want to have children. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43598 Posts
On March 10 2017 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote: I'm really trying to figure out if you understand the micro vs macro argument, because this proves my point and not yours. People in Japan work significantly more hours than Americans, and as a whole have a roughly equivalent financial curve in their society. So yeah, an individual could do better by working harder. If society did the same, the national economy will generally balance it back to the current status quo. You're talking about the relative wealth curve here, right? And saying that if everyone worked harder then the proportion of wealth held by individuals would stay roughly the same. Two issues with that. Firstly, people who are already wealthy have less incentive to put in the extra hours if they are truly extra hours and not culturally mandated. In the US we have a standard 40 hour week. In France 35. If the poorest folks in France started working an extra 5 hours a week that wouldn't force their professional classes to do so, the marginal value of additional income is reduced as you get more of it. And secondly, even if the curve did stay exactly the same because everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, decided they had to work harder, create more value etc, that'd still be a good thing. If I increase my wealth by 5% and Bill Gates increases his wealth by 5% then I'm still better off and I still have more to put away for retirement than I did before. What it comes down to is this. If you don't currently generate enough value to meet your needs and you have the option to generate more then you should. And the "but if everyone generated more value" argument can only lead us to a richer society across the board, even if the proportional wealth remained the same. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On March 10 2017 10:42 KwarK wrote:... And the "but if everyone generated more value" argument can only lead us to a richer society across the board, even if the proportional wealth remained the same. Without expressing an opinion on the other parts of your argument, I have a problem with this statement. If everybody in a society generated more "value" then the society as a whole would be richer, but it does not automatically follow that said richness of society will benefit every member of that society (equally, or even at all). | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 10 2017 10:42 KwarK wrote: You're talking about the relative wealth curve here, right? And saying that if everyone worked harder then the proportion of wealth held by individuals would stay roughly the same. No, I'm saying the standard of living is the same the middle class person in the US who works 40 hours and the middle class person in Japan who works 70, same as the middle class worker in France who works 35. This is because their nation's economy, cost of goods, income, etc. is all based on the income of their citizens. If everyone makes more, everything costs more, to simplify it. And this is, of course, ignoring the people in the US who already work 80 hours a week to make ends meet. Two issues with that. Firstly, people who are already wealthy have less incentive to put in the extra hours if they are truly extra hours and not culturally mandated. In the US we have a standard 40 hour week. In France 35. If the poorest folks in France started working an extra 5 hours a week that wouldn't force their professional classes to do so, the marginal value of additional income is reduced as you get more of it. Lets use your $4500 a year example from plasma donation. If everyone in the United States below the poverty line (does this include children? I'll just assume it does and cut the number by half) earned that much more every year, this would be a swing of about $80 billion nationally. If they earned that money by, as you're advising, cutting service costs, then that's generally money and income that would flow into the working class as well. If you're getting it from plasma donation, that's research funding that would have gone to someone else (unless quotas are seriously being under-met right now, and funds are being left unspent). The general point is, if $80 billion dollars is being gained by cutting personal costs or working an extra hour or two, then this likely means people are getting laid off or someone else isn't getting hired. And secondly, even if the curve did stay exactly the same because everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, decided they had to work harder, create more value etc, that'd still be a good thing. If I increase my wealth by 5% and Bill Gates increases his wealth by 5% then I'm still better off and I still have more to put away for retirement than I did before. What it comes down to is this. If you don't currently generate enough value to meet your needs and you have the option to generate more then you should. And the "but if everyone generated more value" argument can only lead us to a richer society across the board, even if the proportional wealth remained the same. If everyone in the country gains 5% more wealth, this basically leads to dollar deflation and inflation of cost of goods by the same rough amount. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
Growth is a good thing weather its on the personal level or the national level. You're mad if you think otherwise. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 10 2017 11:59 Sermokala wrote: So now making a little extra money on the side in your free time is a bad thing to you? What world do you live in that you think that its pointless to increase GDP or industrial output? Growth is a good thing weather its on the personal level or the national level. You're mad if you think otherwise. And we're right back to square one. Yay, thank you. Growing wealth on a personal level makes you richer. Growth on a national level does not make the poor not poor. Macro vs micro scale. Please follow the discussion. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43598 Posts
On March 10 2017 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote: If everyone in the country gains 5% more wealth, this basically leads to dollar deflation and inflation of cost of goods by the same rough amount. You seem to be confused between money and value. If everyone had 5% more money but no additional value was created then we'd just see inflation correct the error. But if everyone produced 5% more value through their labour then we'd all have more stuff. If this were not true then it never would have been worth bothering with agriculture or mechanization. Increased productivity is always good. | ||
| ||
