Page 36 of 64 FirstFirst ...
26
34
35
36
37
38
46
... LastLast
  1. #701
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    26,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Well, everyone can look at it from their own perspective. But potential wealth is meaningless if it is sitting 100 meters below the surface or in the hands of someone else.

    Value (=wealth) is created when goods are exchanged between two persons and both are better off as a result. If I like metallica and you like iron maiden, but i have an iron maiden cd and you have a metallica cd, swapping cd's will create value (=wealth) for us both.

    Likewise, the value of a couple grams of cedar, rubber and graphite is much much lower than the value of a pencil.
    I'm talking monetary value, not sentimental value.

    Raw materials cost lower than the finished product because of manufacturing processes. This process uses labor. Keep in mind, your paycheck doesn't mean wealth is created. It means wealth has been transferred from your employer to yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  2. #702
    Quote Originally Posted by Swazi Spring View Post
    So millions of people should lose their jobs, just because Obama hates the military?
    No, those thousands (not millions) of people should lose their jobs because we spend way too damn much on the military to begin with.

  3. #703
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    26,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    No, those thousands (not millions) of people should lose their jobs because we spend way too damn much on the military to begin with.
    Holy fuck I agree with Laize.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  4. #704
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    Oh, it is semi-infinite (large enough that it may as well be infinite from an individual human's scale), but barring outside factors, money tends to act like mass and is subject to gravity.

    For example, if you look at the planets of our solar system



    The "top 25%" (top 2 of 8) of planets make up 92% of the mass.

    compare



    Top 20% make up 93% of the wealth.
    That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.

  5. #705
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    26,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.
    There is why the lower class' rate income rates of growth are dwindling and the highest earners' are skyrocketing.

    And I'm back to disagreeing with Laize. I knew it couldn't last
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  6. #706
    Elemental Lord Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.
    So you're going to look at the data and insist that it is wrong in favor of a simplified estimate from over a century ago that fits better with your ideology.

    That's certainly conservatism in a nutshell.

    80/20 is a general guideline and observation, not proclamation of "how things should be" or a goal to strive for. In the USA, it's about 93/20, as shown. In Norway, it's about 71/20 (pg 17).
    Last edited by Masark; 2012-11-15 at 09:08 PM.

  7. #707
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.
    It is wrong, because it should show that the middle class is not being adequately compensated for their work.

  8. #708
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.
    I'm interested in hearing why this is.

  9. #709
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    There is why the lower class' rate income rates of growth are dwindling and the highest earners' are skyrocketing.

    And I'm back to disagreeing with Laize. I knew it couldn't last
    There really isn't anything wrong with a Pareto distribution.

    Even in socialist countries like Sweden, their wealth follows a Pareto distribution.

    The issue is that if the top 20% earn 80% of the income, they should also pay 80% of the taxes.

    Money going out should follow a Pareto distribution as well.

  10. #710
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    They need to go back to when Filibusters meant talking for hours on end like Strom Thurmond.
    totally agree. if you want to stifle the government process you should at least have to work for it imo. not just say "FILIBUSTER!!!" and call it a day

  11. #711
    Quote Originally Posted by Waaldo View Post
    They are only required to provide health care for people who are working full time. So these billion dollar companies only hire people at part time to save money and not give anyone health care.

    And they have done that for YEARS before Obama was even considering running for any office in Washington. You see nothing really is changing in regards to healthcare except that healthcare companies cant cherry pick the customers and send the sick and costly ones to the curb ( you know the ones that cost money for you i mean god forbid we treat those as well since it hurts the quarterly report for some greedy snop in the top 1%)

    Companies have hired 29hrs a week crap to dodge healthcare benefits for DECADES folks dont let them try to lie to you and say it is Obamacare doing it. Thanks to Obamacare they will still have a chance to get affordable healthcare which the companies have REFUSED for DECADES with the less than 29hrs a week hirings.

    It proves what the #1 prio for greedy companies is, It is GREED. per papa johns own estimate it is 14cents per pie to cover all workers he has. indepentant studies have put it between 3.5 and 4.8 cents per pie. But FACT remains he blows 4 times that amount on his 2 million NFL giveaway. It isnt about the money that it is costing to insure workers it is about GREED folks plain and simple GREED.

  12. #712
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    So you're going to look at the data and insist that it is wrong in favor of a simplified estimate from over a century ago that fits better with your ideology.

    That's certainly conservatism in a nutshell.

    80/20 is a general guideline and observation, not proclamation of "how things should be" or a goal to strive for. In the USA, it's about 93/20, as shown. In Norway, it's about 71/20 (pg 17).
    There's a difference between income distribution and wealth distribution.

    I see nothing wrong with an 80/20 distribution of wealth.

  13. #713
    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    Companies have hired 29hrs a week crap to dodge healthcare benefits for DECADES folks dont let them try to lie to you and say it is Obamacare doing it.
    Obamacare is on the way, hours suddenly get cut to 29.5 and it has nothing to do with obama care. Did i read that right?

  14. #714
    Elemental Lord Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    I see nothing wrong with an 80/20 distribution of wealth.
    Yeah, but you don't have an 80/20 distribution. You've got a considerably more lopsided 93/20 distribution.

    That combined with low socioeconomic mobility (as I've previously mentioned either in this thread or a similar one) does show things going wrong.

  15. #715
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    I'm talking monetary value, not sentimental value.

    Raw materials cost lower than the finished product because of manufacturing processes. This process uses labor. Keep in mind, your paycheck doesn't mean wealth is created. It means wealth has been transferred from your employer to yourself.
    You do realize that the wealth that is still underground has almost no monetary value?

    Additionally, huge sums of wealth is created every day within the financial system which merely allocates resources to their most valuable use.

    The total wealth of society can be greatly increase by allocated all the resources to those who value them most. Sitting on five tons of steel in your backyard is worthless for you and society unless you can allocate them better.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-11-15 at 09:35 PM.

  16. #716
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by chadwix View Post
    Obamacare is on the way, hours suddenly get cut to 29.5 and it has nothing to do with obama care. Did i read that right?
    I think his point is that companies have been doing this already, so saying that the AHA is a problem because companies are doing this is to ignore past instances where it has already happened.

    Also, we're going to need to show that correlation equals causation here.

  17. #717
    Elemental Lord Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,986
    Quote Originally Posted by chadwix View Post
    Obamacare is on the way, hours suddenly get cut to 29.5 and it has nothing to do with obama care. Did i read that right?
    I believe what araine means is it isn't obamacare specifically, but rather just the latest variation on the theme of avoiding paying benefits to the greatest extent possible by playing numbers games.

  18. #718
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    Yeah, but you don't have an 80/20 distribution. You've got a considerably more lopsided 93/20 distribution.

    That combined with low socioeconomic mobility (as I've previously mentioned either in this thread or a similar one) does show things going wrong.
    The rich actually paying their share is supposed to help with the mobility aspect. Whether it actually does is another matter.

  19. #719
    Quote Originally Posted by chadwix View Post
    Obamacare is on the way, hours suddenly get cut to 29.5 and it has nothing to do with obama care. Did i read that right?

    You are 100% right the greed on the top have been going the 29hr route for decades i have seen it happen DECADES before Obama was even running for Senate. I know you dont like him but really blaming him for things business have been doing for decades as part of good business practice to cut costs. And now blaming that on Obamacare.

    The only ones that will fall for this are those that listen to FOX, Rush and Glenn or have never been earning paycheck of his own. Just ask around and you might see your parents or something got 29hr part time jobs at some point there there lifes. That 29hr job was 29hr so they could dodge as much benefits as possible, Business have been doing this for DECADES and blaming it on Obama is just that blame your failure to take care of your workers on someone that has no control over it.

    And after all this 29hr practice have been around for DECADES

  20. #720
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpy View Post
    The rich actually paying their share is supposed to help with the mobility aspect. Whether it actually does is another matter.
    In my 31 years of life, I have yet to see the rich pay their fair share. The day we see that will be one of the best days in world history and one of the days where the worlds elite attempt to play the victims to a level that would qualify as drastic over acting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •