oh and nice job running away from the social mobility argument BIE

Why do you care how much someone, anyone, else makes? How does that possibly affect you if I'm dragging down 150(?)k a year?

Thats been done for centuries, since time began. Has it changed your own behavior, or your friends/family's in some way if your neighbor makes more money?

I'd humbly suggest you go talk to your neighbor...

Hammy: thx for your response and taking the time to think logically on it.

as you said we have different perspectives. i'm guessing your opinion rests on trickledown economics/job creators talking points being truthful. I don't share that belief and I don't want to get into a drawn out discussion over that. but I will say this. if someone has to work three jobs just to support himself, he's not going to find the time or even the money to work on a really innovative idea he has. he's not going to take a class or learn a new trade that could earn him more money. on a larger scale basic economics is that when the pool of money sits with a small group of people, that money stays within that group and it is hard for outsiders to cash in. then there's the stats in that pic I posted above. then there is the whole "it takes money to make money."

my favorite quote of the day today is this: "Taylor Swift telling people to follow their dreams is like lotto winners telling people to buy lotto tickets." Startups do get through, but suggesting this trend isn't possible because you can find a few examples of success is as ludicrous as suggesting if gun laws can't stop every single crime they are useless.

the connections with income gaps lead to massive social change/social unrest is absolute fact as far as I'm concerned, and I really don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on that.

(07-06-2016 01:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  oh and nice job running away from the social mobility argument BIE

Can you be more specific? when you puke up as much crap as you did in that post I have trouble picking through it all.

I posted a Berkeley / Harvard study which shows that upward mobility is about now what it was several decades ago.

(07-06-2016 01:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  oh and nice job running away from the social mobility argument BIE

Can you be more specific? when you puke up as much crap as you did in that post I have trouble picking through it all.

I posted a Berkeley / Harvard study which shows that upward mobility is about now what it was several decades ago.

you are hilarious. and not in a good way.

(07-06-2016 01:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  oh and nice job running away from the social mobility argument BIE

Can you be more specific? when you puke up as much crap as you did in that post I have trouble picking through it all.

I posted a Berkeley / Harvard study which shows that upward mobility is about now what it was several decades ago.

And it is, nearly, as it's always been. Hand someone a lotto win, and see how long they are rich.

Hand someone a skill, however, say a welder, a bricklayer, or teacher of one sort or another, and see if he or she can't or doesn't make a better life for him/herself and the kids etc., going forward. But that takes effort.

This idiocy that we have to make some people worse off, to make other people better off is very simply, lazy, re-distributionist, marxist propaganda.

Get a job. ANY job. And your life will improve from there.

Fact.

(07-06-2016 12:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  1. That luxury seating is one of the most important components to modern day stadium design, if not the most important.

Because in engineering terms getting stadiums much beyond 70-80K is a losing proposition in even a strong ticket market, let alone one that has been declining for a decade.

Quote:2. That emphasis on luxury seating has grown considerable from in stadium design than 10, 20, 30, or even 40 years ago.

I'm guessing your knowledge of structural engineering or construction/civil engineering is pretty limited. Am I right in that assumption?

Quote:3. That luxury seating is a major cash cow and is lucrative enough to change the mindset of how teams design their stadiums.

Are stadiums smaller today than they were 20 years ago?

Quote:4. That luxury seating is so lucrative that stadium designers will emphasize it above all else, including sacrificing total capacity, sacrificing quality viewpoints for large numbers of fans.

You mean they put the most expensive seats where the best seating is... I'm shocked! that's totally different then they did things in the past.

Quote:5. That the overwhelming majority of stadiums today focus on luxury seating.

Please define focus.

Quote:you know what, I'm betting on csnbbs strongly disagreeing with you. I'm making a thread with those question.

I like the bait and switch you walked me into, or are trying to walk me into. I never *once* said that stadiums have not changed.

What I have noticed here, in particular, is that you neglect to consdier *AT ALL* how the market has changed due to telecommunications and the evidance that NFL attendance is falling (both in absolute and per captia numbers)

Quote:I never said the notion that a preference for luxury seating lives or dies on capacity decreasing.

It seemed strongly implied by this statement.

it has a major impact on the economy. stadiums are focusing on luxury over total capacity. companies are also changing their focus. for example at a yacht club where you would normally see three medium size boats two decades ago you now see one large boat. I read one story a while back about airplane manufactures focusing on private cabins. the result is always the same. because it's better to cater to one super rich guy than 20 rich guys or 100 normal people, they will focus on developing products tailored to 1% of the country. that's not a good approach for encouraging innovation. that's not a good approach for improving quality of life.

a de facto american aristocracy

all I said is that they focus more on luxury.

But because you don't understand engineering or the sports media market you seem to assign a *motive* of that focus being income disparity. As if to say "if we did not have this disparity and *everything else stayed the same* stadiums would not focus so much on luxury boxes.

Quote:if they build a larger stadium with a massive emphasis on luxury seating, how does that not prove they are emphasizing luxury seating. if you want to look at a good history of NFL stadium design check this out.

Where did I say they were not. I merely don't think it's *at all* related to income disparity. I think it's a complicated issue which is evidenced by declining attendance, more blackouts, and the engineering cost associated with bigger stadiums.

(07-05-2016 08:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Income has zero to do with equality and how much one makes is no ones business. Im waiting on someone to step up and voluntarily admit they make too much and give the surplus away.

The problem is we have more people than we have work to do and illegals are driving down the wages at the lower end. Income inequality is a symptom.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(07-06-2016 05:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 08:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Income has zero to do with equality and how much one makes is no ones business. Im waiting on someone to step up and voluntarily admit they make too much and give the surplus away.

The problem is we have more people than we have work to do and illegals are driving down the wages at the lower end. Income inequality is a symptom.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

yep....been saying that for quite some time now...

too many puppies by those that should not = 1

decades of failed policy decision making is the disease....

it's a runaway train now....

I see it every single day....and it's hardly the way I would prefer making my dime....

hence, Trump....

Part of the American dream is the dream of success.

If it were not for income inequality, there would be no dream.

America is an exceptional country built by Horatio Algers.

(07-06-2016 01:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why do you care how much someone, anyone, else makes?

Envy.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Work hard, keep working hard, and don't accept the status quo. Better yourself, and your income will surely increase.

Whining and bitching about people who make more than you is not what America is about. It is sadly what Liberal America is about.

(07-06-2016 08:19 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why do you care how much someone, anyone, else makes?

Envy.

(07-05-2016 08:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 08:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Income has zero to do with equality and how much one makes is no ones business. Im waiting on someone to step up and voluntarily admit they make too much and give the surplus away.

that CEO who gave everyone a raise.

a lot of super rich people have stated they will leave almost their entire estate to charity simply on the notion that it would be too unconscionable to leave such a large pool of money to a multi-generation family. the de facto aristocracy is one of many problems with IE but it is the one talking point that no one can really argue against.

Philanthropy is different from sharing income.

(07-06-2016 08:23 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Work hard, keep working hard, and don't accept the status quo. Better yourself, and your income will surely increase.

Whining and bitching about people who make more than you is not what America is about. It is sadly what Liberal America is about.

I agree.

One major problem with lack of income mobility...is the lack of willingness to physically be mobile. You have to be willing to MOVE to where the jobs are. They are not likely to move to your area.

Crony capitalism benefits the cronies and politicians, not the public. So who’s surprised that the income gap in widening under Obama? It’s The Chicago Way taken national.

But income inequality is not the issue. I no more care if some dude has a boat in the Hamptons or a cabin on Cross Lake than I do the man in the moon.

What I want is more opportunity for my portfolio and my income to grow. That is the anchor holding the economy back, not a bunch of richy-riches hoarding money.

FWIW, if the economy we have today is the result of true capitalism, damn right I’d become a socialist (of course it's not, let's get that out of the way.) Low or negative asset growth for the middle class, no job security, persistent low workplace participation, and low wage growth. That is not capitalism.

The poor and working class in this country are barely acquainted with real capitalism and unfortunately are not far removed from feudalism and constant warfare (drug abuse, lack of education, disease, single motherhood, prison time) – and again suffered the most in the Recession.

So radical ideas like income redistribution and Obamacare seem to make a lot of sense at the time. But nowhere is redistribution a substitute for economic growth. Now, redistribution keeps the poor happy but it doesn’t change their place in society. This is both a bug and a feature - a bug to the poor, a feature to the current political classes.

Our politicians deny reality. They believe, despite the evidence of nearly a hundred years, that command economy and redistribution of wealth is both just and efficient, and that using the government picking winners and losers makes the economy produce more wealth. But in reality, there is no economic theory which supports this belief.

Capitalism has created more "income equality" and wealth than anything in the history of the world. It is not capitalism's fault that some folks are lazy, ignorant and lack the ability to relocate where the jobs are.

(07-06-2016 01:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why do you care how much someone, anyone, else makes? How does that possibly affect you if I'm dragging down 150(?)k a year?

Thats been done for centuries, since time began. Has it changed your own behavior, or your friends/family's in some way if your neighbor makes more money?

I'd humbly suggest you go talk to your neighbor...

You're right, of course, in a sense. What you make is your own business and good for you if you make a good wage. Congratulations. You win. You're important. You matter. You're special.

I think the root problem is there's too much wealth concentrated in too few hands. Nobody wins when that's the case. It's caused revolution, rebellion and chaos and eventually will again. Bad things go down when one segment of a society has all the money and controls all the resources.

On a related note, there's no way we pay people according to their real worth to society. A good teacher should make far more than a good athlete. A good firefighter or paramedic should make more than a salesman. A good cop should make more than a hedge fund manager. Our priorities in this country are off.
We as a culture value the wrong things.

I personally give a rat's ass what you make. And I'm a liberal. But if you expect me to think there's no problem with the way wealth is distributed in this country, you're wrong. There's no level playing field. If you're born comfortable, you have much more opportunity than you do if you're born in harsher circumstances.

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why do you care how much someone, anyone, else makes? How does that possibly affect you if I'm dragging down 150(?)k a year?

Thats been done for centuries, since time began. Has it changed your own behavior, or your friends/family's in some way if your neighbor makes more money?

I'd humbly suggest you go talk to your neighbor...

You're right, of course, in a sense. What you make is your own business and good for you if you make a good wage. Congratulations. You win. You're important. You matter. You're special.

I think the root problem is there's too much wealth concentrated in too few hands. Nobody wins when that's the case. It's caused revolution, rebellion and chaos and eventually will again. Bad things go down when one segment of a society has all the money and controls all the resources.

On a related note, there's no way we pay people according to their real worth to society. A good teacher should make far more than a good athlete. A good firefighter or paramedic should make more than a salesman. A good cop should make more than a hedge fund manager. Our priorities in this country are off.
We as a culture value the wrong things.

I personally give a rat's ass what you make. And I'm a liberal. But if you expect me to think there's no problem with the way wealth is distributed in this country, you're wrong. There's no level playing field. If you're born comfortable, you have much more opportunity than you do if you're born in harsher circumstances.

Do I think teachers, firefighters, paramedics and cops should make higher incomes?....Yes. These though are government jobs that require monies from public sources. I think it is more a matter of "priorities" in how we spend public funds that are the problem here. I oppose ANY form of regulation of income in the private sector. What people make in the private sector is none of my business.

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  I think the root problem is there's too much wealth concentrated in too few hands.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense. A handful of people with gobs of money isn't keeping money out of the pockets of another guy. This isn't Monopoly or Life where there is a finite number of "bills" in the bank. For very simplistic terms say a billionaire has a 10,000 SF house. To build that house they aren't robbing every middle class neighborhood of construction materials.

There is plenty of room for people to move "up" in America. I refuse to believe that the "current rich" are the problem. MAYBE there is an argument to be made for the uber rich (top 1% of the top 1%, Walmart running out mom and pop). If that's a big enough deal support mom and pop. Pretty simple solution there.

Btw the top 1% "only" makes about $400K per year or more. They pay ~35% of ALL taxes too boot. I'd say that's more than fair in terms of their taxes (only saying that b/c I know you were a Bernie supporter).