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.
On February 28 2014 11:00 Wolfstan wrote: I am very patriotic and grateful that we live in a society where people can move up and down form social classes.
Social mobility is awful in the US, why on earth would you be patriotic about people moving between classes in the US of all places. This is just plain delusion. The facts simply do not agree with your beliefs, the US is hugely outperformed by the interventionist states in Northern Europe when it comes to social mobility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison
The US is only ahead of the UK as a shitty place to be born poor in the developed world, and only just. Your feelings of patriotism are not rooted in the success of the US, for it has no success, it's failing horribly, but rather your own delusional beliefs in the American mythos and ignorance about how badly the US compares to the rest of the developed world.
Isn't he Canadian ?
I think he is in imagination land when he says things like
He arrives in Calgary to an already hired 70-100k/yr blue collar Job.
You know those tarsands you guys gripe about? $25/hr, 60-80hr/wk, free room and board, $20 or $60 per diem for being out of town. Damn right we fight for these jobs and their amazing wealth creation opportunities when the left attacks the economic engine industries. Those are the jobs that allow my Indian buddy to make a decent living while not knowing what left or right political parties mean or what city Harvard is in. Just more hypocrisy when the left tries to destroy these jobs, and then claim they are imagination land.
On February 28 2014 07:27 oneofthem wrote: if we are talking about the brutality or viciousness of exploitation, then the ancient world has us beat. but in other ways our modern world is similarly stratified, and this modern inequality is not totally accounted for by simple power exploitation.
the true saying of rich gets richer is basically how modern inequality works and it's largely about the return of capital being higher than labor and human capital.
Isn't it more an issue of different labor pay rates?
ex. the big corporate CEO gets paid a lot for his labor, but the janitor cleaning the office doesn't.
No it's not. Basically since 30 years the top 1% gain less and less from labor and more and more from patrimony, in europe and the US (I gave some numbers but that seems wrongs, and I don't want to open a book right now).
I'll have to look up some numbers then. No issues with classification? i.e. booking cap gains from labor as capital income?
On February 28 2014 05:55 Livelovedie wrote: So essentially it is just rejecting the concept of scarcity as the means to determine value? I added some more questions if you're bored and want to further educate .
Well I could write a lot to respond to this question and I might go so far that I would lost you, so I will stick to Ossowski's distinction (in the famous book Class structure in the social consciousness). For communism, a society is made of social class. The bigger difference between stratification (a hierarchy of various social group from the bottom to the top, in the form of a pyramid) and social class, is that the first one is a "scheme of gradation" while the other is a "scheme of dependancy".
Implying that scarcity determine value only have sense from a stratification standpoint : there are fewer people at the top, thus their skills are more valuable. From a social class standpoint, the hearth of the theory is the idea that all social group a dependant upon another. A society is the result of the action of all of its members, and it is impossible to actually isolate the "skill" of one member. It's a core distinction, that seems quite ridiculous from a microeconomic standpoint (I can clearly see that some skill are more useful than others in specific situation) but very interesting from a macroeconomic standpoint (is it possible for me to evaluate the productivity of one member ? of a specific group of people ? No, because their actions are always intertwined with the action of others, making a society).
I'm not sure I responded to the question.
Ah ok it gets back to the point that you cannot isolate someone from externalities. You can measure productivity but not with all things equal sort of thing? I hope that's essentially what I was suppose to take away .
You can (in economy) measure productivity for an entire factor (capital, labor, or both) but not for a specific man.
Sort of? Some jobs are pretty opaque in that respect, but I don't think it's that cut and dry.
On February 28 2014 11:00 Wolfstan wrote: I am very patriotic and grateful that we live in a society where people can move up and down form social classes.
Social mobility is awful in the US, why on earth would you be patriotic about people moving between classes in the US of all places. This is just plain delusion. The facts simply do not agree with your beliefs, the US is hugely outperformed by the interventionist states in Northern Europe when it comes to social mobility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison
The US is only ahead of the UK as a shitty place to be born poor in the developed world, and only just. Your feelings of patriotism are not rooted in the success of the US, for it has no success, it's failing horribly, but rather your own delusional beliefs in the American mythos and ignorance about how badly the US compares to the rest of the developed world.
Isn't he Canadian ?
I think he is in imagination land when he says things like
He arrives in Calgary to an already hired 70-100k/yr blue collar Job.
You know those tarsands you guys gripe about? $25/hr, 60-80hr/wk, free room and board, $20 or $60 per diem for being out of town. Damn right we fight for these jobs and their amazing wealth creation opportunities when the left attacks the economic engine industries. Those are the jobs that allow my Indian buddy to make a decent living while not knowing what left or right political parties mean or what city Harvard is in. Just more hypocrisy when the left tries to destroy these jobs, and then claim they are imagination land.
On February 28 2014 12:06 mahrgell wrote: 60-80hr/wk? That's not even legal in large parts of europe, at least not as base contract. (overtime can get you there, surely)
On February 28 2014 07:27 oneofthem wrote: if we are talking about the brutality or viciousness of exploitation, then the ancient world has us beat. but in other ways our modern world is similarly stratified, and this modern inequality is not totally accounted for by simple power exploitation.
the true saying of rich gets richer is basically how modern inequality works and it's largely about the return of capital being higher than labor and human capital.
Isn't it more an issue of different labor pay rates?
ex. the big corporate CEO gets paid a lot for his labor, but the janitor cleaning the office doesn't.
No it's not. Basically since 30 years the top 1% gain less and less from labor and more and more from patrimony, in europe and the US (I gave some numbers but that seems wrongs, and I don't want to open a book right now).
I'll have to look up some numbers then. No issues with classification? i.e. booking cap gains from labor as capital income?
On February 28 2014 05:55 Livelovedie wrote: So essentially it is just rejecting the concept of scarcity as the means to determine value? I added some more questions if you're bored and want to further educate .
Well I could write a lot to respond to this question and I might go so far that I would lost you, so I will stick to Ossowski's distinction (in the famous book Class structure in the social consciousness). For communism, a society is made of social class. The bigger difference between stratification (a hierarchy of various social group from the bottom to the top, in the form of a pyramid) and social class, is that the first one is a "scheme of gradation" while the other is a "scheme of dependancy".
Implying that scarcity determine value only have sense from a stratification standpoint : there are fewer people at the top, thus their skills are more valuable. From a social class standpoint, the hearth of the theory is the idea that all social group a dependant upon another. A society is the result of the action of all of its members, and it is impossible to actually isolate the "skill" of one member. It's a core distinction, that seems quite ridiculous from a microeconomic standpoint (I can clearly see that some skill are more useful than others in specific situation) but very interesting from a macroeconomic standpoint (is it possible for me to evaluate the productivity of one member ? of a specific group of people ? No, because their actions are always intertwined with the action of others, making a society).
I'm not sure I responded to the question.
Ah ok it gets back to the point that you cannot isolate someone from externalities. You can measure productivity but not with all things equal sort of thing? I hope that's essentially what I was suppose to take away .
You can (in economy) measure productivity for an entire factor (capital, labor, or both) but not for a specific man.
Sort of? Some jobs are pretty opaque in that respect, but I don't think it's that cut and dry.
Yes that's cut and dry.
You mean for economists or everyone?
The book I quoted expressively talk about this if you want. I could maybe scan some graph from the for TL, but it's in french :/
Damn right I believe that, the majority of Blue Collar employees in our industry under attack live in our 2 urban centers with massive benefits to the individuals of Alberta. You think we cry "inequality" when big bad oil releases their quarterly reports? Blue collar, white collar, communities, investors all benefit from intelligent policy with a focus on economic development.
On February 28 2014 07:27 oneofthem wrote: if we are talking about the brutality or viciousness of exploitation, then the ancient world has us beat. but in other ways our modern world is similarly stratified, and this modern inequality is not totally accounted for by simple power exploitation.
the true saying of rich gets richer is basically how modern inequality works and it's largely about the return of capital being higher than labor and human capital.
Isn't it more an issue of different labor pay rates?
ex. the big corporate CEO gets paid a lot for his labor, but the janitor cleaning the office doesn't.
No it's not. Basically since 30 years the top 1% gain less and less from labor and more and more from patrimony, in europe and the US (I gave some numbers but that seems wrongs, and I don't want to open a book right now).
I'll have to look up some numbers then. No issues with classification? i.e. booking cap gains from labor as capital income?
On February 28 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On February 28 2014 06:25 WhiteDog wrote:
On February 28 2014 06:17 Livelovedie wrote:
On February 28 2014 06:08 WhiteDog wrote:
On February 28 2014 05:55 Livelovedie wrote: So essentially it is just rejecting the concept of scarcity as the means to determine value? I added some more questions if you're bored and want to further educate .
Well I could write a lot to respond to this question and I might go so far that I would lost you, so I will stick to Ossowski's distinction (in the famous book Class structure in the social consciousness). For communism, a society is made of social class. The bigger difference between stratification (a hierarchy of various social group from the bottom to the top, in the form of a pyramid) and social class, is that the first one is a "scheme of gradation" while the other is a "scheme of dependancy".
Implying that scarcity determine value only have sense from a stratification standpoint : there are fewer people at the top, thus their skills are more valuable. From a social class standpoint, the hearth of the theory is the idea that all social group a dependant upon another. A society is the result of the action of all of its members, and it is impossible to actually isolate the "skill" of one member. It's a core distinction, that seems quite ridiculous from a microeconomic standpoint (I can clearly see that some skill are more useful than others in specific situation) but very interesting from a macroeconomic standpoint (is it possible for me to evaluate the productivity of one member ? of a specific group of people ? No, because their actions are always intertwined with the action of others, making a society).
I'm not sure I responded to the question.
Ah ok it gets back to the point that you cannot isolate someone from externalities. You can measure productivity but not with all things equal sort of thing? I hope that's essentially what I was suppose to take away .
You can (in economy) measure productivity for an entire factor (capital, labor, or both) but not for a specific man.
Sort of? Some jobs are pretty opaque in that respect, but I don't think it's that cut and dry.
Yes that's cut and dry.
You mean for economists or everyone?
The book I quoted expressively talk about this if you want. I could maybe scan some graph from the for TL, but it's in french :/
On February 28 2014 11:00 Wolfstan wrote: Alright let me derail the thread with my "Indian on the couch" childhood friend whose face I put to the bottom 20%...
I recently (Feb 20th) bought my friend a $630 plane ticket for my down on his luck friend to move in with me and get his life back together. He called me up asking for a helping hand up and I obliged telling him if he followed my advice he would have a middle class life for his family by Labour Day. He has 2 kids preschool and toddler with a bottom 20% woman back in Newfoundland. He has been fired from Mcdonald's and was working overnights at a bakery for a non-living wage. He has never paid rent on time and still has Feb 1 overdue.
First step was to leave his family and come to Calgary at my expense and a promise to follow my advice and pay his debts. He arrives in Calgary to an already hired 70-100k/yr blue collar Job. He then spent 3 of 4 days off blackout drunk despite my disapproval. When it came time to write down our goals he had no idea of what kind of man he wanted to be and had a depressed, noncommittal attitude about the goals we were setting for him. Me: "I want you to read one book within 3 months" Him staring vacantly at the computer: "You're a book"
He is off on site right now and we are going to review his goals every 2 weeks. We are going to have him set up for Labour Day with his girlfriend and kids but the character he and his woman will impart upon their children leaves me little hope that they will succeed. I see no way our government or society will help him better than what I'm doing as an individual. His lot in life is own, his choices are his own, it's not mine, my bosses, my company or my industry that will determine where he ends up.
I am very patriotic and grateful that we live in a society where people can move up and down form social classes. So his story is the face I put to the misfortunes of others and at the same time the opportunities that the system that is set up allows him to make a better life for himself and his kids.
End rant/ramble
Firstly, you say it several times yourself. His "bad actions" don't just influence himself, they influence his kids, and you question how he can be a good role model for them now and in the future. This is admission of how social status is inherited.. While I don't know your friend and while there are certainly exceptions, chances are high his dad was not a good role model for him either..
Secondly I can understand how working 80 hour weeks could push someone into a depression. That's not an ideal to push for. I mean if you like your job then sure, but if you don't like your job, you're not particularly good at it (likely if he was as under-qualified as you make him sound), then spending a large majority of your waking hours on it sounds terrible.
"The odds of moving up — or down — the income ladder in the United States have not changed appreciably in the last 20 years, according to a large new academic study that contradicts politicians in both parties who have claimed that income mobility is falling.
...
The new study, based on tens of millions of anonymous tax records, finds that the mobility rate has held largely steady in recent decades, although it remains lower than in Canada and in much of Western Europe, where the odds of escaping poverty are higher."
I don't know if anyone denies that social mobility could be better, but how are we to get there? That's the question. Do we advocate individuals or government? is it worth it for there to be "income inequality?" Obviously people here know what I think, but we really need to stop with the whole "conservatives are denying that things aren't so hot right now."
On February 28 2014 11:00 Wolfstan wrote: I am very patriotic and grateful that we live in a society where people can move up and down form social classes.
Social mobility is awful in the US, why on earth would you be patriotic about people moving between classes in the US of all places. This is just plain delusion. The facts simply do not agree with your beliefs, the US is hugely outperformed by the interventionist states in Northern Europe when it comes to social mobility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison
The US is only ahead of the UK as a shitty place to be born poor in the developed world, and only just. Your feelings of patriotism are not rooted in the success of the US, for it has no success, it's failing horribly, but rather your own delusional beliefs in the American mythos and ignorance about how badly the US compares to the rest of the developed world.
Isn't he Canadian ?
I think he is in imagination land when he says things like
He arrives in Calgary to an already hired 70-100k/yr blue collar Job.
You know those tarsands you guys gripe about? $25/hr, 60-80hr/wk, free room and board, $20 or $60 per diem for being out of town. Damn right we fight for these jobs and their amazing wealth creation opportunities when the left attacks the economic engine industries. Those are the jobs that allow my Indian buddy to make a decent living while not knowing what left or right political parties mean or what city Harvard is in. Just more hypocrisy when the left tries to destroy these jobs, and then claim they are imagination land.
When you are making crazy profits with subsidies from the Canadian government and externalizing all your costs to the environment, you can afford to pay marginally higher wages for back-breaking labor in isolated oil towns. There isn't any wealth creation there.
Firstly, you say it several times yourself. His "bad actions" don't just influence himself, they influence his kids, and you question how he can be a good role model for them now and in the future. This is admission of how social status is inherited.. While I don't know your friend and while there are certainly exceptions, chances are high his dad was not a good role model for him either..
Absolutely social status is inherited, your father gives you values, work-ethic, mindset, wisdom and material assets. The state should supplement that inheritance with education and reinforcing the values and habits that make successful people successful. I am NOT for intervention through child services(there is a line, don't attack this please) or handouts.(there is a line here too).
Secondly I can understand how working 80 hour weeks could push someone into a depression. That's not an ideal to push for. I mean if you like your job then sure, but if you don't like your job, you're not particularly good at it (likely if he was as under-qualified as you make him sound), then spending a large majority of your waking hours on it sounds terrible.
His depression was from where he was in life and the fact that he has a long way to go to make something of himself for his children. He loves his job and it is easier that the service jobs he's used to. I get similar pay working 9-5 in the city, but he is taking the Hard-work path to prosperity that was deemed BS the last couple pages.
On February 28 2014 12:18 Wolfstan wrote: Damn right I believe that, the majority of Blue Collar employees in our industry under attack live in our 2 urban centers with massive benefits to the individuals of Alberta. You think we cry "inequality" when big bad oil releases their quarterly reports? Blue collar, white collar, communities, investors all benefit from intelligent policy with a focus on economic development.
n 2012, approximately 121,500 people were employed in Alberta's upstream energy sector, which includes oil sands, conventional oil and gas, and mining.
wow! Thats almost...wow 5 % of Albertans.
Yeah so his paychecks are 80 hours at 25ish and 70hours at 37ish. That is 115k gross.
There is major growth there, and I was given $1000 for the referral.
"Oh you arent skilled? Its okay, just go to community college!" Do you think people who go to community college are 'blue collar'? or that people fluked out and were born in Northern Alberta are representative of blue collar employees? Why even use that, just tape us about the amazing life styles of hard working Saudi Arabians!
Firstly, you say it several times yourself. His "bad actions" don't just influence himself, they influence his kids, and you question how he can be a good role model for them now and in the future. This is admission of how social status is inherited.. While I don't know your friend and while there are certainly exceptions, chances are high his dad was not a good role model for him either..
Absolutely social status is inherited, your father gives you values, work-ethic, mindset, wisdom and material assets. The state should supplement that inheritance with education and reinforcing the values and habits that make successful people successful. I am NOT for intervention through child services(there is a line, don't attack this please) or handouts.(there is a line here too).
Secondly I can understand how working 80 hour weeks could push someone into a depression. That's not an ideal to push for. I mean if you like your job then sure, but if you don't like your job, you're not particularly good at it (likely if he was as under-qualified as you make him sound), then spending a large majority of your waking hours on it sounds terrible.
His depression was from where he was in life and the fact that he has a long way to go to make something of himself for his children. He loves his job and it is easier that the service jobs he's used to. I get similar pay working 9-5 in the city, but he is taking the Hard-work path to prosperity that was deemed BS the last couple pages.
Let me know when he turns that awesome wage into ownership. My best is that when his body breaks down and his pension plan is gutted by another bursting of a real estate bubble he dies penniless and his children aren't any better off.
"The odds of moving up — or down — the income ladder in the United States have not changed appreciably in the last 20 years, according to a large new academic study that contradicts politicians in both parties who have claimed that income mobility is falling.
...
The new study, based on tens of millions of anonymous tax records, finds that the mobility rate has held largely steady in recent decades, although it remains lower than in Canada and in much of Western Europe, where the odds of escaping poverty are higher."
I don't know if anyone denies that social mobility could be better, but how are we to get there? That's the question. Do we advocate individuals or government? is it worth it for there to be "income inequality?" Obviously people here know what I think, but we really need to stop with the whole "conservatives are denying that things aren't so hot right now."
Two basic blocks that allow better social mobility are free (or nearly free) higher education and public healthcare system. First being more important for this particular issue. Without those you can just dream about better social mobility.
I'm getting to the point where I don't believe the education thing on inequality and mobility. Not that education is bad or anything, I think more people should be highly educated because it benefits society as a whole. However, if/when higher levels of education are available to more people, that will do nothing to close the gap.
Those fueling the inequality aren't doing so because they're better skilled, they are positioned in such a way that it is impossible to unseat them and their lineage from their thrones, which means there isn't any room for anybody else up there.
You need more shades of grey. Better access to education might not solve the whole issue, but it improves the current state. Education gets you access to better paying jobs. Also this only solves the issue of meritocracy, but that just means that position of the individual in society is determined not based on his inherited wealth, but on his inherited biological features. Problem of this inherent inequality can currently be solved only through safety nets and other tools of social state.
On February 28 2014 12:45 Introvert wrote: Interesting study I found when googling around.
"The odds of moving up — or down — the income ladder in the United States have not changed appreciably in the last 20 years, according to a large new academic study that contradicts politicians in both parties who have claimed that income mobility is falling.
...
The new study, based on tens of millions of anonymous tax records, finds that the mobility rate has held largely steady in recent decades, although it remains lower than in Canada and in much of Western Europe, where the odds of escaping poverty are higher."
I don't know if anyone denies that social mobility could be better, but how are we to get there? That's the question. Do we advocate individuals or government? is it worth it for there to be "income inequality?" Obviously people here know what I think, but we really need to stop with the whole "conservatives are denying that things aren't so hot right now."
Two basic blocks that allow better social mobility are free (or nearly free) higher education and public healthcare system. First being more important for this particular issue. Without those you can just dream about better social mobility.
You got anything backing this up you'd like to share? After showing whatever evidence has led you to believe this, also pray tell if you're funding these "free" things with a progressive income tax or something else.
The fact that I happen to think the president is right on many of these policies does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing is wrong, and that this can be a dangerous change in our system. And our system is changing in a very fundamental way. And it’s changing without a whimper of regret or opposition.
...
We are now at a Constitutional tipping point.
Them Tea Party lawyers! Wait a minute.... it's not just the "far right" that recognizes these issues.
Note: I do necessarily agree with everything he says here.
On February 28 2014 14:28 aksfjh wrote: I'm getting to the point where I don't believe the education thing on inequality and mobility. Not that education is bad or anything, I think more people should be highly educated because it benefits society as a whole. However, if/when higher levels of education are available to more people, that will do nothing to close the gap.
Those fueling the inequality aren't doing so because they're better skilled, they are positioned in such a way that it is impossible to unseat them and their lineage from their thrones, which means there isn't any room for anybody else up there.
a lot of research on childhood education being very critical. college and beyond is a game of elite getting more elite though due to the demand for professional jobs.
EPT
.
