How much could be considered acceptable? What is so bad about what we have now?

There is nothing wrong with income equality per se.

It's an indicator of a wider problem not a problem in itself.

This left-wing hysteria about it is more simple minded folks wanting to treat the symptoms instead of the disease.

The disease being the political class and their sellout of American manufacturing.

Any amount is acceptable.

We should strive for equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. The latter has failed every time iy has been attempted. Even the Chinese realized for their brand of communism to work they had to eliminate the equal outcomes.

(07-05-2016 06:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There is nothing wrong with income equality per se.

It's an indicator of a wider problem not a problem in itself.

This left-wing hysteria about it is more simple minded folks wanting to treat the symptoms instead of the disease.

The disease being the political class and their sellout of American manufacturing.

a lack of social mobility hurts us in the long run. we are not as effective in using all our talented people to their maximum benefit when a significant chunk of the wealth is in the hands of a small group and others are unable to obtain it.

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

massive income inequality is a major cause of revolution. from the french revolution to the arab spring. we saw this with occupy wall street. that is only the tip of the iceberg and it would be disastrous for us to see the rest of that iceberg.

Decent answer John. I was hoping a liberal would respond. Biggest issue Id have with it is that in theory anybody is able to attain wealth despite people in the top 1% having so much. I would also say that 1% guy cant just horde everything for himself (ie, his massive house isnt making hundreds of others homeless). Not like its a zero sum game here.

How much is too much though? Better yet, who gets to decide?

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.

(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.

(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.

Who should he leave ot to, if not hos family? His momey.. Should be his choice.

the only further gap widening I want to see is the dial-a-ho my nutz are getting ready to call...

it's not about inequality at this point....it's about people having the incentive to get up off their fk'n arse....and that isn't being created in any way, shape, or form...

fit form function is nothing more than conjunction junction, what's your function....

these fk'rs don't have a fk'n clue....

(07-05-2016 08:50 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(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.

Who should he leave ot to, if not hos family? His momey.. Should be his choice.

it is his choice. all I'm saying is that the de facto aristocracy argument is impossible to counter and resonates very strongly with people.

(07-05-2016 08:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 08:50 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(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.

Who should he leave ot to, if not hos family? His momey.. Should be his choice.

it is his choice. all I'm saying is that the de facto aristocracy argument is impossible to counter and resonates very strongly with people.

My bad, misunderstood the last couple of sentences.

(07-05-2016 07:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a lack of social mobility

Is mainly a leftists myth... At least it "getting worse" in the US is a myth.

A Harvard and Barkley study found that mobility has not really changed for the past 40+ years



The study, by a clutch of economists at Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley, is far bigger than any previous effort to measure social mobility. The economists crunch numbers from over 40m tax returns of people born between 1971 and 1993 (with all identifying information removed). They focus on mobility between generations and use several ways to measure it, including the correlation of parents’ and children’s income, and the odds that a child born into the bottom fifth of the income distribution will climb all the way up to the top fifth.

They find that none of these measures has changed much (see chart). In 1971 a child from the poorest fifth had an 8.4% chance of making it to the top quintile. For a child born in 1986 the odds were 9%. The study confirms previous findings that America’s social mobility is low compared with many European countries. (In Denmark, a poor child has twice as much chance of making it to the top quintile as in America.) But it challenges several smaller recent studies that concluded that America had become less socially mobile.

Quote:it has a major impact on the economy. stadiums are focusing on luxury over total capacity.

Citation needed!

Many stadiums have been modified to hold more people
Qualcomm Stadium seated 52,000 in 1967, it now seats 70,561.

And teams new stadiums have grown. (Vikings)
Met Stadium 1967 41,200, Metrodome 1982 62,000, U.S. Bank 2016 66,000

Quote: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.

Citation needed...

In 1980 there were 8.5 million recreational boats owned in the United States, today that number is 12 million.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/24063...in-the-us/

Or you know, just keep making crap up to support your world view.

(07-05-2016 09:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 07:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a lack of social mobility

Is mainly a leftists myth... At least it "getting worse" in the US is a myth.

A Harvard and Barkley study found that mobility has not really changed for the past 40+ years



The study, by a clutch of economists at Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley, is far bigger than any previous effort to measure social mobility. The economists crunch numbers from over 40m tax returns of people born between 1971 and 1993 (with all identifying information removed). They focus on mobility between generations and use several ways to measure it, including the correlation of parents’ and children’s income, and the odds that a child born into the bottom fifth of the income distribution will climb all the way up to the top fifth.

They find that none of these measures has changed much (see chart). In 1971 a child from the poorest fifth had an 8.4% chance of making it to the top quintile. For a child born in 1986 the odds were 9%. The study confirms previous findings that America’s social mobility is low compared with many European countries. (In Denmark, a poor child has twice as much chance of making it to the top quintile as in America.) But it challenges several smaller recent studies that concluded that America had become less socially mobile.

Quote:it has a major impact on the economy. stadiums are focusing on luxury over total capacity.

Citation needed!

Many stadiums have been modified to hold more people
Qualcomm Stadium seated 52,000 in 1967, it now seats 70,561.

And teams new stadiums have grown. (Vikings)
Met Stadium 1967 41,200, Metrodome 1982 62,000, U.S. Bank 2016 66,000

Quote: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.

Citation needed...

In 1980 there were 8.5 million recreational boats owned in the United States, today that number is 12 million.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/24063...in-the-us/

Or you know, just keep making crap up to support your world view.

you really are delusional.

let's do some math.

1980 population is 226 mill. today it is 322 mill. divide those figures by population and you get almost the exact same number. 3.76 vs 3.72 with the trend showing a decrease. you lie through your teeth. you rounded up the number (11.87) and neglected to mention that your own link shows a peak of 12.94 million in 2005. your own *** **** link shows that as income inequality increased growth rate decreased and then after that total stats started decreases.



ford field



49ers



maryland

give me a freaking break dude. this is an absolute fact. it is also an absolute fact that luxury seating is a cash cow. new vs old yankee stadium has a difference of like 7K. guess which one is smaller. ASU had a similar decrease.

speaking of using selective examples to pathetically try to prove an end all be all:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/report...-education

but I'm going to stop there because knowing you and your being too busy to read something on a google search that disagrees with your pre determined opinion, I'm going to just use this because it doesn't take much brainpower, work, or time, to look at a picture:



for the record: I do truly feel sorry for you and how closed minded you are. it's as if no matter what position I take you will try your best to disagree with it. seriously. how else could someone think looking at a few capacity numbers automatically proves it. how could someone look at my statement that they focus on "luxury over total capacity" and think just by proving capacity increases it disproves it. all I said is focus which means as long as their primary goal is getting the maximum amount of luxury seating, the capacity number isn't even relevant. and then there is the even dumber "total boat stats" that do nothing to show size variations and you were too dumb (I mean to say that respectfully but I don't know what other word to use that is less offensive) to factor in population growth. I mean yeah there are more cars today than any year before and that is never going to change so why use those stats in a way where the same result is not based on economic conditions (more cars today than X decades ago).

think dude think. and don't be so partisan.

also you didn't touch the de facto aristocracy thing which proves my other point. no one can give a legitimate counterpoint to it.

(07-05-2016 05:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  How much could be considered acceptable? What is so bad about what we have now?

Ask Silicon Valley liberals, they are experts at this

So how much is too much inequality? Who decides?

(07-05-2016 10:33 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  So how much is too much inequality? Who decides?

when those ugly-ass stadiums stop getting built.

Trying not to pick it apart as I appreciate the response, but I think it shows a difference of perspective

(07-05-2016 07:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a lack of social mobility hurts us in the long run. we are not as effective in using all our talented people to their maximum benefit when a significant chunk of the wealth is in the hands of a small group and others are unable to obtain it.

why are they unable to obtain it? If its because they're not willing to do what it takes to get it, then

I think the left focuses too much on the ultra wealthy, who obviously have far more RISK capital than do anyone else, so they have the most potential to gain... and they don't focus enough on being 'wealthy'... however you want to define that. I mean, there are people who came from nothing and are millionaire's by 20... often because of a talent or an idea... Until that stops happening, I just don't see how we aren't socially mobile... unless someone suggests that we turn into a monopoly economy where everyone starts with $1mm, and we see what happens from there.

Quote: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
[quote]

So stop supporting those teams and support your local AAA affiliate or college team. THAT yacht club might cater to that wealthy guy, but that just opens up the opportunity for a new one to open down the lake.

The fact is that the wealthy will pay for exclusivity... whereas most others will buy by price, which means you can have 5 really wealthy people or 100 average people to make your millions.... but fortunately, there are 10,000 average people for every 5 wealthy.

Pro football teams want 75000 people willing to spend $100+/ticket for 10ish games in towns with populations of 500,000 plus and metro areas of greater than 1mm. That leaves hundreds of thousands of people who can attend other events or watch on TV. The choice is yours.


[quote]massive income inequality is a major cause of revolution. from the french revolution to the arab spring. we saw this with occupy wall street. that is only the tip of the iceberg and it would be disastrous for us to see the rest of that iceberg.

WHICH french revolution? Aristocracy wasn't about income inequality, but about opportunity. No opportunity if you weren't already 'royal'. Arab Spring is arguably similar. Their income inequality is about 'divine right' as well.

I think we are CAUSING the problems by implying that the poor don't have opportunity in this country. No, you can't catch the ultra wealthy in a generation... but you CAN become wildly successful in one generation. In fact, you can become wildly successful by the time you're 20... with absolutely no family money.

Is it 'fair' that risk capital has a greater return on it than labor? Well, I don't know what you're going to do about that. The wealthy have three things to sell... their labors and ideas and talents, just like everyone else... their wealth, which of course few have and is the most difficult thing to acquire and thus the most rewarded... and finally, their 'sacrifice'... which everyone has... but they can be far more comfortable 'doing without' because of their wealth.

Everyone else only has two... most often because their ancestors did without something.

(07-05-2016 10:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  let's do some math.

Yes lets..

Quote:1980 population is 226 mill.

And there were 28 NFL teams. So there were 8.071 million people per NFL team

Quote:today it is 322 mill.

And there are 32 million NFL teams. So there are 10.06 million people per NFL team

That means the number of people per NFL team has increased roughly 20% or so. You and I could both cherry pick a few stadiums here or there which support our claims. Look at the new stadium in Dallas (supports me) or thedecrease at Ralph Wilson from 80K down to 73K (supports you).

Quote:divide those figures by population and you get almost the exact same number.

But being the critical thinker you are you ignored the 15% increase in NFL teams. and that kind of blows your thinking out of the water. The trend is pretty flat, if anything it tilts slightly in my direction.

I encourage you to use google, look at every NFL stadium and the past 20 years of capacity. Get back to me when you've done that.

Quote:you lie through your teeth.

No John, you just pick and choose what maths work for you and discard the rest.

In fact, your piss poor "analysis" of population versus stadium capacity is the *least* of the holes in your hypothesis that "stadiums are getting smaller" (they are not) because of the little guy getting screwed.

How about look at demand?

How many ways were there to watch your team play at home in 1980? what kind of quality was there on the venues. Do you remember watching football in the early 80's?

In fact *actual* and *per capacity* attendance has been level or falling for sometime.



25 blackouts because teams are not selling out their venues cost a lot of money.

Or the costs related to supply?

How expensive is it to add 20% more seats to an arena? How much will people pay to be more than a third of a mile away from the action when they can watch it at home. How about adding parking for all those people?

You approach this like a 10-year-old with no real understanding of construction costs, limitations on structural engineering, or the market at large.

Quote:you rounded up the number (11.87) and neglected to mention that your own link shows a peak of 12.94 million in 2005. your own *** **** link shows that as income inequality increased growth rate decreased and then after that total stats started decreases.

My link showed it spiked just before the enconomic slowdown in 2007 which led to the 2008 collapse and that during the riegn of Obama things have not improved for that industry.

Quote:for the record: I do truly feel sorry for you and how closed minded you are. it's as if no matter what position I take you will try your best to disagree with it.

Stop pretending you're so central to anyone's life. You post many more times than I bother to respond to.

It's only when I see bald conjecture wrapped around your idology that I call you on your bull shaq.

Quote:seriously. how else could someone think looking at a few capacity numbers automatically proves it.

It's the same thing you did, and you did it without considering the market or the engineering costs involved in making bigger stadiums.

BTW the reason I lead with a few examples is because if I ask you to prove anything you act like a petulant child.


Watch...

"for example at a yacht club where you would normally see three medium size boats two decades ago you now see one large boat."

CITATION NEEDED! You just said that three medium boats have turned into 1 large boat. That would mean a decrease of 66% in the recreational boat industry at some yacht clubs... Can you back that up, at all, with numbers?

Quote:And there were 28 NFL teams. So there were 8.071 million people per NFL team

Quote:And there are 32 million NFL teams. So there are 10.06 million people per NFL team

That means the number of people per NFL team has increased roughly 20% or so. You and I could both cherry pick a few stadiums here or there which support our claims. Look at the new stadium in Dallas (supports me) or thedecrease at Ralph Wilson from 80K down to 73K (supports you).

Quote:But being the critical thinker you are you ignored the 15% increase in NFL teams. and that kind of blows your thinking out of the water. The trend is pretty flat, if anything it tilts slightly in my direction.

I encourage you to use google, look at every NFL stadium and the past 20 years of capacity. Get back to me when you've done that.

Quote:No John, you just pick and choose what maths work for you and discard the rest.

In fact, your piss poor "analysis" of population versus stadium capacity is the *least* of the holes in your hypothesis that "stadiums are getting smaller" (they are not) because of the little guy getting screwed.

in both those responses you talk about the NFL. I was talking about boats in that one

Quote:My link showed it spiked just before the enconomic slowdown in 2007 which led to the 2008 collapse and that during the riegn of Obama things have not improved for that industry.

this is what I'm talking about when I say you lack integrity. it shows a slowdown in growth rate and basically flatlined well before 2007.

Quote:It's the same thing you did, and you did it without considering the market or the engineering costs involved in making bigger stadiums.

this is csnbbs dude. one of the best forums for discussing sports politics. you will be laughed out of a thread for disagreeing with any of the following.

1. That luxury seating is one of the most important components to modern day stadium design, if not the most important.

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

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

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.

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

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

but before we get to that, can we please address what you continue to claim is not what I said. I never said the notion that a preference for luxury seating lives or dies on capacity decreasing. all I said is that they focus more on luxury. 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.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4k..._hub_post/

you are dead wrong. I'm going to prove you are dead wrong. you can either admit when you are wrong. or prove once and for all what I say about you (and I'm not talking about the nice things).

Quote:CITATION NEEDED! You just said that three medium boats have turned into 1 large boat. That would mean a decrease of 66% in the recreational boat industry at some yacht clubs...

again what is with you putting words in my mouth. I never said or came close to suggesting a 66% decrease in boats. all I said is that when you go to a typical yacht club, the arrangement of boats is considerably different. yall always prop up personal experience in these spin room discussions so: I grew up in a family where boating was a big deal. I literally had a crib in a boat when I was little. all of my summer jobs growing up were related to yachting. I've seen this first hand and it is absolutely true.

from wiki:

Between 1997 and 2008, there was a massive growth in the number, size, and popularity of large private or super-sized luxury yachts in the 24-to-70-metre (79 to 230 ft) size range.