(10-08-2019 08:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I always get those inter and intra prefixes mixed up.

Bringing it back to sports, I've noticed that in recent years, what used to be called an "intrasquad" game (a scrimmage between two sides from the same team, or "squad") was starting to be referred to as an "intersquad" game. In its first uses, "intersquad" was undoubtedly an error by people not familiar with "intra" as a prefix, but it may have gained traction on the post-facto belief that the two scrimmage sides are themselves "squads". At any rate, the usage of "intersquad" now seems to have peaked, and "intrasquad" seems to be regaining its former pre-eminence as the descriptor.

Similarly, I've noticed that the fad for the spelling "publically" also seems to have peaked; I still see it, but not as frequently as a couple of years ago.

So there is hope for the world yet!

(10-08-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As usual, I have to wonder what the goal is. As Owl69 says, if you don't know where you are going, any path with get you there.

Is inequality bad? Did the existence of Astors and Rockefellers and Fords and Heinzs somehow set this country back?

Lad and his team are wise to avoid answering this question, as they have no answer.

They have no idea what the optimum level of inequality is. We might actually be there at this moment and they would not know. Or maybe the optimum is more than we have now, and they would not know.

They are lemmings: the journey is the thing, and not the destination.

Kind of reminds me of their climate "plan".

(10-09-2019 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As usual, I have to wonder what the goal is. As Owl69 says, if you don't know where you are going, any path with get you there.

Is inequality bad? Did the existence of Astors and Rockefellers and Fords and Heinzs somehow set this country back?

Lad and his team are wise to avoid answering this question, as they have no answer.

They have no idea what the optimum level of inequality is. We might actually be there at this moment and they would not know. Or maybe the optimum is more than we have now, and they would not know.

They are lemmings: the journey is the thing, and not the destination.

Kind of reminds me of their climate "plan".

At this point, I'm actually avoiding the question just to see how many posts you make about it.

I missed your first request, but want to keep this going.

(10-09-2019 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As usual, I have to wonder what the goal is. As Owl69 says, if you don't know where you are going, any path with get you there.

Is inequality bad? Did the existence of Astors and Rockefellers and Fords and Heinzs somehow set this country back?

Lad and his team are wise to avoid answering this question, as they have no answer.

They have no idea what the optimum level of inequality is. We might actually be there at this moment and they would not know. Or maybe the optimum is more than we have now, and they would not know.

They are lemmings: the journey is the thing, and not the destination.

Kind of reminds me of their climate "plan".

At this point, I'm actually avoiding the question just to see how many posts you make about it.

I missed your first request, but want to keep this going.

Do you have an answer?

(10-09-2019 09:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As usual, I have to wonder what the goal is. As Owl69 says, if you don't know where you are going, any path with get you there.

Is inequality bad? Did the existence of Astors and Rockefellers and Fords and Heinzs somehow set this country back?

Lad and his team are wise to avoid answering this question, as they have no answer.

They have no idea what the optimum level of inequality is. We might actually be there at this moment and they would not know. Or maybe the optimum is more than we have now, and they would not know.

They are lemmings: the journey is the thing, and not the destination.

Kind of reminds me of their climate "plan".

At this point, I'm actually avoiding the question just to see how many posts you make about it.

I missed your first request, but want to keep this going.

Do you have an answer?

Lad makes my point - the people so fervently chasing income equality have no idea of what their goal is or why. Ask them their goal and they go mute.

Good to learn what you know, Laddie!!

Here are ideas. I don't understand all the Mu's and Sigma's, but I bet a lot of you guys can. None of them state a goal.

http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/is-th...inequality

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/income-inequa...ght-amount

https://www.npr.org/2014/05/18/313137739...ght-amount

(10-09-2019 09:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As usual, I have to wonder what the goal is. As Owl69 says, if you don't know where you are going, any path with get you there.

Is inequality bad? Did the existence of Astors and Rockefellers and Fords and Heinzs somehow set this country back?

Lad and his team are wise to avoid answering this question, as they have no answer.

They have no idea what the optimum level of inequality is. We might actually be there at this moment and they would not know. Or maybe the optimum is more than we have now, and they would not know.

They are lemmings: the journey is the thing, and not the destination.

Kind of reminds me of their climate "plan".

At this point, I'm actually avoiding the question just to see how many posts you make about it.

I missed your first request, but want to keep this going.

Do you have an answer?

There's lots of ways to tackle this. But first, it's not that the entirety of your generation only cared about making money, but I think my generation has more people who are evaluating non-economic benefits when looking at what they do.

One example of how economics were the primary driver is that you didn't see jobs with flexibility, shorter hours, etc. Now, the drive recently has definitely been pushed by technology allowing that flexibility, but inherently, people are making decisions to trade pay for flexibility in a way they used to not think about.

Another is that you mostly had a household that could be run by one working parent, so the sole breadwinner didn't have to try and weight work-flexibility with the demands of the job, whereas a good portion of families these days have two working parents, which means that they need to consider more than just salary when evaluating career choices.

Another is that a lot of businesses and individuals operated in a way where externalities weren't considered - so if it was cheaper to dump toxic waste out the back door, they did it, until regulations came around and forced them to change course.

Does that work for you?

Also, you gonna hound Ham about this too? He is the one that started this question by saying

Quote:I think there's a lot to be said for the idea that young adults of the 80's are prone to desire excesses... Young adults of the 90's much less so and young adults of the millennium SUBSTANTIALLY less.

How much of wealth distribution is the result of conscious choices by many, especially the young to prefer time, flexibility (the gig economy) or (for lack of a better term) altruism to wealth?

Or do you really only pick bones with people you perceive as being on the other team?

(10-09-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 09:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As usual, I have to wonder what the goal is. As Owl69 says, if you don't know where you are going, any path with get you there.

Is inequality bad? Did the existence of Astors and Rockefellers and Fords and Heinzs somehow set this country back?

Lad and his team are wise to avoid answering this question, as they have no answer.

They have no idea what the optimum level of inequality is. We might actually be there at this moment and they would not know. Or maybe the optimum is more than we have now, and they would not know.

They are lemmings: the journey is the thing, and not the destination.

Kind of reminds me of their climate "plan".

At this point, I'm actually avoiding the question just to see how many posts you make about it.

I missed your first request, but want to keep this going.

Do you have an answer?

There's lots of ways to tackle this. But first, it's not that the entirety of your generation only cared about making money, but I think my generation has more people who are evaluating non-economic benefits when looking at what they do.

One example of how economics were the primary driver is that you didn't see jobs with flexibility, shorter hours, etc. Now, the drive recently has definitely been pushed by technology allowing that flexibility, but inherently, people are making decisions to trade pay for flexibility in a way they used to not think about.

Another is that you mostly had a household that could be run by one working parent, so the sole breadwinner didn't have to try and weight work-flexibility with the demands of the job, whereas a good portion of families these days have two working parents, which means that they need to consider more than just salary when evaluating career choices.

Another is that a lot of businesses and individuals operated in a way where externalities weren't considered - so if it was cheaper to dump toxic waste out the back door, they did it, until regulations came around and forced them to change course.

Does that work for you?

Also, you gonna hound Ham about this too? He is the one that started this question by saying

Quote:I think there's a lot to be said for the idea that young adults of the 80's are prone to desire excesses... Young adults of the 90's much less so and young adults of the millennium SUBSTANTIALLY less.

How much of wealth distribution is the result of conscious choices by many, especially the young to prefer time, flexibility (the gig economy) or (for lack of a better term) altruism to wealth?

Or do you really only pick bones with people you perceive as being on the other team?

Well, my question was about inequality goals, but this question is interesting too.

My generation joined the Peace Corp. My generation went to war. My generation marched in rallies and protests. This current generation? Antifa?

When I was about 22, I saw an article in the paper about an executive who had a large salary, a lake house, boats, cars, etc., but worked 100 hours a week and brought home work every night. Right then and there I resolved not to be that guy.

My wife stayed home when she chose to, she worked outside the house (nurse) when she wanted to. Neither decision was based on $$$$. In fact, to accommodate her desire to work, I closed my downtown office and moved to my garage, so that I could be there to watch my elementary school age kids when they got home. Again, not a choice made on $$$$.

Nor were these kinds of choices restricted to me. I saw many people making choices based on factors other than money.

I don't think there is that much of a generational gap. The options are different today but the motivations are the same.

I think the answer is that the left will always perceive 'inequality' and 'fairness' in broad terms; just broad enough for them to gin up votes based on the class warfare card. To put specific numbers or objective values to those concepts deprives them of the ever unending crusade.

Take the ideal in racial issues --- ask them when (if ever) affirmative action should ever even be considered to be ended.

No one doubts the efficacy of the practice in the delta time between the late 1960's and to mid 2000's. But it would be tantamount to sacrilege to ever end it based on progressive theology, let alone have the temerity to even ask the question of when it might be proper to even consider.

If you doubt this, simply look at the amici briefs and trial briefs in front of the SCOTUS (or for that matter any Federal appellate case) whenever *any* university is taken to task for discrimination issues on admission policies.

But for progressive purposes, the subjective crusade is always best.

(10-09-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . . . people are making decisions to trade pay for flexibility in a way they used to not think about.

I've been thinking about and acting upon that for most of my life. Which generation am I?

(10-09-2019 11:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the answer is that the left will always perceive 'inequality' and 'fairness' in broad terms; just broad enough for them to gin up votes based on the class warfare card. To put specific numbers or objective values to those concepts deprives them of the ever unending crusade.

Take the ideal in racial issues --- ask them when (if ever) affirmative action should ever even be considered to be ended.

No one doubts the efficacy of the practice in the delta time between the late 1960's and to mid 2000's. But it would be tantamount to sacrilege to ever end it based on progressive theology, let alone have the temerity to even ask the question of when it might be proper to even consider.

If you doubt this, simply look at the amici briefs and trial briefs in front of the SCOTUS (or for that matter any Federal appellate case) whenever *any* university is taken to task for discrimination issues on admission policies.

But for progressive purposes, the subjective crusade is always best.

One strange thing is that in their quest for "fairness", leftists seem to focus almost religiously on income. But study after study has shown that a close family, strong friendships, and sex each have a greater impact than money on a person's happiness -- and all of those are unequally distributed, often extremely so. Yet leftists rarely demand equal distribution of those essential factors.

(10-09-2019 11:47 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . . . people are making decisions to trade pay for flexibility in a way they used to not think about.

I've been thinking about and acting upon that for most of my life. Which generation am I?

Not sure.

All I said was that MORE people are doing this these days, a sentiment shared by Hambone.

(10-09-2019 11:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the answer is that the left will always perceive 'inequality' and 'fairness' in broad terms; just broad enough for them to gin up votes based on the class warfare card. To put specific numbers or objective values to those concepts deprives them of the ever unending crusade.
...
But for progressive purposes, the subjective crusade is always best.

When they talk about "inequality" or "the rich need to pay their fair share," they are never willing to set any quantifiable metrics, just "more, more, more."

There are two ways to reduce income and wealth inequality--make rich people poorer, or make poor people richer. The democrats/progressives are locked into making rich people poorer. They refuse to address the fact that there is really no way to make the rich poorer without making everybody--except perhaps the ruling elites--poorer. We have the level of economic growth that we have today in large part because of the incentives that we provide. Reduce the incentives and growth will inevitably stagnate. That's just basic economics.

But what about going the other way, making poor people richer? There are ways to do that--things like revising our welfare program to get rid of the "poverty trap/welfare trap" that hits people between incomes of about $15,000 to $55,000 (a universal basic income based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund accomplishes that nicely), universal health care/insurance (the Bismarck model is the best), a privatized element of social security (a "super 401k" that gives every American worker a "piece of the rock"), and lower and flatter and broader income taxes. So far republicans have not gotten behind these (other than reduced income taxes, which have to be offset with consumption taxes, like the rest of the world) as alternatives?

What irritates me to no end is that republicans don't seem to have constructive alternatives to making the rich poorer. If republicans could say, "Democrats are the party of making the rich poorer, we are the party of making the poor richer," and provide concrete proposals to do so, I think they would attract far more rich and poor votes.

(10-09-2019 11:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:47 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . . . people are making decisions to trade pay for flexibility in a way they used to not think about.

I've been thinking about and acting upon that for most of my life. Which generation am I?

Not sure.

All I said was that MORE people are doing this these days, a sentiment shared by Hambone.

I presume that is your opinion, not a fact.

(10-09-2019 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:47 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . . . people are making decisions to trade pay for flexibility in a way they used to not think about.

I've been thinking about and acting upon that for most of my life. Which generation am I?

Not sure.

All I said was that MORE people are doing this these days, a sentiment shared by Hambone.

I presume that is your opinion, not a fact.

A little bit of both.

I've read enough articles that talk about rationales for investing/taking jobs at a lower wage because of the impact they have on society, that it seems pretty clear that there are a lot of millenials that are driven more by that, than by sheer economic success.

A quick google found this:

Quote:This generation also blurs the line between personal and societal well-being. According to Morgan Stanley, 84% of millennials cite investing with a focus on ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) impact as a central goal.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/02/this-is-...onomy.html

This isn't to say the entire generation puts altruism over economics, or that people like that didn't exist in previous generations. But I agree with Hambone that there are a lot of millenails, and likely more than previous generations, that are weighting income less than other things when making decisions about jobs, investments, etc.

If you're interested in providing hard evidence that refutes my thesis, I'm more than willing to hear it - as opposed to putting my fingers in my ears like some posters on here do.

(10-09-2019 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the answer is that the left will always perceive 'inequality' and 'fairness' in broad terms; just broad enough for them to gin up votes based on the class warfare card. To put specific numbers or objective values to those concepts deprives them of the ever unending crusade.
...
But for progressive purposes, the subjective crusade is always best.

When they talk about "inequality" or "the rich need to pay their fair share," they are never willing to set any quantifiable metrics, just "more, more, more."
There are two ways to reduce income and wealth inequality--make rich people poorer, or make poor people richer. The democrats/progressives are locked into making rich people poorer. They refuse to address the fact that there is really no way to make the rich poorer without making everybody--except perhaps the ruling elites--poorer. We have the level of economic growth that we have today in large part because of the incentives that we provide. Reduce the incentives and growth will inevitably stagnate. That's just basic economics.
But what about going the other way, making poor people richer? There are ways to do that--things like revising our welfare program to get rid of the "poverty trap/welfare trap" that hits people between incomes of about $15,000 to $55,000 (a universal basic income based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund accomplishes that nicely), universal health care/insurance (the Bismarck model is the best), a privatized element of social security (a "super 401k" that gives every American worker a "piece of the rock"), and lower and flatter and broader income taxes. So far republicans have not gotten behind these (other than reduced income taxes, which have to be offset with consumption taxes, like the rest of the world) as alternatives?
What irritates me to no end is that republicans don't seem to have constructive alternatives to making the rich poorer. If republicans could say, "Democrats are the party of making the rich poorer, we are the party of making the poor richer," and provide concrete proposals to do so, I think they would attract far more rich and poor votes.

Lad (and maybe OO or Tanq), any comments?

Can you stop debating what millennials want long enough to consider this approach?

(10-09-2019 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the answer is that the left will always perceive 'inequality' and 'fairness' in broad terms; just broad enough for them to gin up votes based on the class warfare card. To put specific numbers or objective values to those concepts deprives them of the ever unending crusade.
...
But for progressive purposes, the subjective crusade is always best.

When they talk about "inequality" or "the rich need to pay their fair share," they are never willing to set any quantifiable metrics, just "more, more, more."
There are two ways to reduce income and wealth inequality--make rich people poorer, or make poor people richer. The democrats/progressives are locked into making rich people poorer. They refuse to address the fact that there is really no way to make the rich poorer without making everybody--except perhaps the ruling elites--poorer. We have the level of economic growth that we have today in large part because of the incentives that we provide. Reduce the incentives and growth will inevitably stagnate. That's just basic economics.
But what about going the other way, making poor people richer? There are ways to do that--things like revising our welfare program to get rid of the "poverty trap/welfare trap" that hits people between incomes of about $15,000 to $55,000 (a universal basic income based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund accomplishes that nicely), universal health care/insurance (the Bismarck model is the best), a privatized element of social security (a "super 401k" that gives every American worker a "piece of the rock"), and lower and flatter and broader income taxes. So far republicans have not gotten behind these (other than reduced income taxes, which have to be offset with consumption taxes, like the rest of the world) as alternatives?
What irritates me to no end is that republicans don't seem to have constructive alternatives to making the rich poorer. If republicans could say, "Democrats are the party of making the rich poorer, we are the party of making the poor richer," and provide concrete proposals to do so, I think they would attract far more rich and poor votes.

Lad (and maybe OO or Tanq), any comments?

Can you stop debating what millennials want long enough to consider this approach?

Ha - chuckled a bit.

In short, I agree with your general dissatisfaction with both major parties regarding this issue.

I personally hate that Dems continue to harp on the "pay their fair share" line, because, if anything, it puts wealthy individuals on the defensive and minimizes the fact that many are paying gigantic tax bills, regardless of how it relates to their annual income. I do think Dems are closer to the goal of saying they're the party of making the poor richer, but they focus too much on attacking the wealthy.

I don't know how we move forward and get either party to break from their pre-set ways and actually evaluate a different set of solutions to problems. I don't see either really pushing for a VAT. But maybe there is hope with Dems to propose a UBI alternative to Yang's Freedom Dividend. I see 0 chance of Reps coming anywhere close to that.

(10-09-2019 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ha - chuckled a bit.
In short, I agree with your general dissatisfaction with both major parties regarding this issue.
I personally hate that Dems continue to harp on the "pay their fair share" line, because, if anything, it puts wealthy individuals on the defensive and minimizes the fact that many are paying gigantic tax bills, regardless of how it relates to their annual income. I do think Dems are closer to the goal of saying they're the party of making the poor richer, but they focus too much on attacking the wealthy.

I don't, because if they really wanted to make the poor richer, they would never have foisted this "welfare plantation" onto them. "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat."

Quote:I don't know how we move forward and get either party to break from their pre-set ways and actually evaluate a different set of solutions to problems. I don't see either really pushing for a VAT. But maybe there is hope with Dems to propose a UBI alternative to Yang's Freedom Dividend. I see 0 chance of Reps coming anywhere close to that.

VAT plus UBI plus Bismarck health care is the only way out. It's the only way the numbers work.

(10-09-2019 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the answer is that the left will always perceive 'inequality' and 'fairness' in broad terms; just broad enough for them to gin up votes based on the class warfare card. To put specific numbers or objective values to those concepts deprives them of the ever unending crusade.
...
But for progressive purposes, the subjective crusade is always best.

When they talk about "inequality" or "the rich need to pay their fair share," they are never willing to set any quantifiable metrics, just "more, more, more."
There are two ways to reduce income and wealth inequality--make rich people poorer, or make poor people richer. The democrats/progressives are locked into making rich people poorer. They refuse to address the fact that there is really no way to make the rich poorer without making everybody--except perhaps the ruling elites--poorer. We have the level of economic growth that we have today in large part because of the incentives that we provide. Reduce the incentives and growth will inevitably stagnate. That's just basic economics.
But what about going the other way, making poor people richer? There are ways to do that--things like revising our welfare program to get rid of the "poverty trap/welfare trap" that hits people between incomes of about $15,000 to $55,000 (a universal basic income based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund accomplishes that nicely), universal health care/insurance (the Bismarck model is the best), a privatized element of social security (a "super 401k" that gives every American worker a "piece of the rock"), and lower and flatter and broader income taxes. So far republicans have not gotten behind these (other than reduced income taxes, which have to be offset with consumption taxes, like the rest of the world) as alternatives?
What irritates me to no end is that republicans don't seem to have constructive alternatives to making the rich poorer. If republicans could say, "Democrats are the party of making the rich poorer, we are the party of making the poor richer," and provide concrete proposals to do so, I think they would attract far more rich and poor votes.

Lad (and maybe OO or Tanq), any comments?

Can you stop debating what millennials want long enough to consider this approach?

I am all in favor of making the poor richer. Your plan sounds good to me.

Especially agree with the bolded.

(10-09-2019 11:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:47 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . . . people are making decisions to trade pay for flexibility in a way they used to not think about.

I've been thinking about and acting upon that for most of my life. Which generation am I?

Not sure.

All I said was that MORE people are doing this these days, a sentiment shared by Hambone.

Come to think of it, both my parents made similar decisions, which might be where I got the idea.

It is not uncommon for each generation to believe that it invented moral virtue (among other things). I wonder which is greater: the extent to which millennials prioritize non-monetary considerations compared to previous generations, or the event to which they talk about doing so.