- #106
Digitalism
- 40
- 9
You are incorrect. At the very least they show an implicit relationship between intergenerational mobility and education, though I don't think that is the only cause.
Please explain in more detail. Recently we had a thread about a cartoon purporting to show how much harder it was to get an education if you are poor than rich. There were several factors, not all related to money, and none explored were internal.Digitalism said:You are incorrect. At the very least they show an implicit relationship between intergenerational mobility and education, though I don't think that is the only cause.
Czcibor said:I think that we're discussing wrong subject: "inequality" instead "why the hell the USA experienced quite nice GDP growth but the median income stagnate and whether something can be done about it".
For sure there are:
-some problems with measuring it (smaller households, treating as personal income that what earlier would be classified as corporate income);
-cost of cool electronic toys accessible for masses vs. cost healthcare and education; (cherry pick the one that you prefer and get the answer that you want ;) )
-some dysfunction of US political system where too much money influence system;
-short term calculation (even if everyone would get a few times in his life a huge bonus then the inequality of annual income would go up);
-globalization which makes only some people to face very fierce competition (textile workers hit but not lawyers).
I personally also suspect that inequality to big extend is not the problem to be tackled, but a symptom of underlying problems (like low quality of education for some social groups; or problems with taxing the top incomes).
Maybe we should rather start discussing the other problem? Not as moral issue but as efficiency issue? (Because of my research subject I can say quite a lot about international taxation)
What are "sectors"? Do you mean for the different income levels across the population as a whole? I last posted that data here:Tosh5457 said:I would like to see data on which sectors the wages have stagnated, in which it has grew, and in those it has fallen; I think it's easier to make an analysis and find the culprit once we have it broken down by sector. I can find it for a given year, but not a timeseries of it, would someone be so kind to post something about it?
russ_watters said:What are "sectors"? Do you mean for the different income levels across the population as a whole? I last posted that data here:
Inequality - Maybe not so bad?
Or do you mean by industry? Or something else?
lavinia said:Another issue with the financial side of Capitalism is the imposition of fiscal austerity measures on countries that default or are at risk of defaulting on loans. I post these articles by Paul Krugman on the austerity imposed by the EuroZone on Greece and Italy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/opinion/krugman-austerity-italian-style.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/opinion/paul-krugman-greece-over-the-brink.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
Czcibor said:You raised an interesting subject - so what one should do if gov was running deficit year after (on very popular stuff like early retirement) and reach a point where creditors lose faith in gov ability to repay debts?
Because of such heavy spending I also don't understand why you classify that as bad "issue with the financial side of Capitalism", and not as an issue of an irresponsible version of socialism facing the day of reckoning?
lavinia said:Not sure what you mean about socialism. Can you explain?
I think Krugman clearly explains why he thinks it is bad.
Czcibor said:Yes, I know Krugman point. He is absolutely right that austerity strangles economy in crisis. Just there is a problem here - what else to do, when country credit credibility is low? Especially now, when ECB monetary policy is a lose as possible (even negative interest rates) so default Krugman advice is already implemented. Greeks leaving Eurozone? Cool, even that time I'm in full agreement with him.
I mean Greek society was voting all the time nice socialistic parties, that were providing them with all nice features of socialism (early retirement, hiring plenty of civil servants, etc). As long as they could borrow that on markets everything was fine. Now when they run out of other's people money - that's a capitalism flaw?
But you already diagnosed problem deep enough to claim that's a capitalism fault :DThis is not an area that I feel competent to delve into in detail and would welcome information and the opportunity to learn.
Czcibor said:But you already diagnosed problem deep enough to claim that's a capitalism fault :D
This problem is being discussed:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...es-capital-control.821114/page-3#post-5157199
(quite a few nice stats are being quoted)
You selected quite unlucky subject for your ideological bent. ;)
The second challenge is that when you are showing that one solution don't work, to suggest an alternative one... and the tricky part starts...
lavinia said:You want to accuse me of ideology. That is not only unfair but also shows that you think ideologically rather than rigorously. Dialogue does not seem to be your preference. Your aggression has ended this thread. as far as I am concerned anyway Too bad. There is much to think about here.
russ_watters said:Yes, all of those stats document the inequality different ways and some look at causes (and I'm pretty much aware of all of them), but none examine the cause I asked about. That bothers me a lot (it isn't you: I don't think people who research the issue are examining my question). It seems political to me that researchers focus on external factors and don't even address the possibility that internal factors (choices) impact inequality/mobility.
Czcibor said:First - a technical question - how are you going to measure internal causes? I understand why you want to measure that, why you see a some flaw in measuring only external factors... but how to measure that?
Second - now, with Greece, you have a country, which didn't have especially adverse external conditions, but somehow it seriously underperformed. Something inside those people... but how to measure / pinpoint that...
(yes, human capital, but it assessment would be done mostly ex post)
No I mean the tricky part of gathering any data (that may later analysed by as you suggested ex. Factor Analysis/PCA) from inside of people minds. Some questionnaires? Arranged games based ex. on prisoners dilemma?WWGD said:Factor Analysis/PCA?
My favourite was measuring testosterone level after US election by checking google key words in different states... ;)WWGD said:Actually, there are ways of figuring out the mood in the minds of people,; it has been done: one can sample blogs for certain words which tend to correlate with certain moods and/ or frames of mind. To invest in the market, to detect whether the mood is bearish or bullish, one samples for words like 'worry' , etc. and similarly for other words in other areas. Sorry if that is not what you meant.
Czcibor said:My favourite was measuring testosterone level after US election by checking google key words in different states... ;)
Here you would need to analyse values (?) that people in the sample believe now and their outcomes ex. 20 years later.
You obviously did not read or look at the references I provided, so do you think providing more will help? The argument goes like this poverty affects cognitive development in multiple ways. It increases stressors, it affects grey matter formation and ability to self regulate emotion, it affects self confidence due to being treated poorly which affects performance, it increases likelihood of a range of social ills that also act as a block to performance such as drug/alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy etc. The money itself is a factor because real wages have been stagnant for 35 years while tuition has gone up markedly in comparison. The poor run through a cycle of striving to overcome their problems due to lack of resources and then being blamed for them. Conversely the rich do not suffer these negative circumstances, in addition they are praised for performing well though largely that is a condition of their birth and they actively game the system to their advantage. There are increased signs of narcissism/sociopathy correlated with income. In addition, they are tied to social networks that actively exclude the poor as is seen in both the financial sector and in the ivy league. In addition racial issues are a factor with less qualified whites more likely to receive management and ivy league acceptance over their peers due to subconscious racism. I can provide referencesfor everyrhing I have said, meanwhile you are just saying "I don't believe you." Without providing a counter argument.russ_watters said:Please explain in more detail. Recently we had a thread about a cartoon purporting to show how much harder it was to get an education if you are poor than rich. There were several factors, not all related to money, and none explored were internal.It sounds like you are saying that because a rich person has more money, the money itself explains why they can go to college. Maybe that's your "implicit relationship". Well that isn't enough for me. I don't want to accept an implication, I want to know the facts.The numbers are never going to be equal, nor should they be. But in order to know if they are good or bad and how to fix them if they are bad, we need to actually know the causes, not just guess.
I think that you are preocupied with external factors, while Russ with internal, like values that people may have. I think that he haven't brought a good study yet, so I finally have something:Digitalism said:You obviously did not read or look at the references I provided, so do you think providing more will help? The argument goes like this poverty affects cognitive development in multiple ways. It increases stressors, it affects grey matter formation and ability to self regulate emotion, it affects self confidence due to being treated poorly which affects performance, it increases likelihood of a range of social ills that also act as a block to performance such as drug/alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy etc.
Here I fully agree with the pathology of US systemThe money itself is a factor because real wages have been stagnant for 35 years while tuition has gone up markedly in comparison. The poor run through a cycle of striving to overcome their problems due to lack of resources and then being blamed for them. Conversely the rich do not suffer these negative circumstances, in addition they are praised for performing well though largely that is a condition of their birth and they actively game the system to their advantage.
Quite possible. If you have a success that's caused by internal factors, if you failed - by external factors. ;) Just why you haven't brought studies showing how interesting explanation people can get for their failures?There are increased signs of narcissism/sociopathy correlated with income.
Damn, I think I've seen somewhere stats showing that race is no longer an issue (which meant that rich Black kids did as well as White rich kids, and poor as bad). Possible? Shall I run a fact check on that?In addition, they are tied to social networks that actively exclude the poor as is seen in both the financial sector and in the ivy league. In addition racial issues are a factor with less qualified whites more likely to receive management and ivy league acceptance over their peers due to subconscious racism. I can provide referencesfor everyrhing I have said, meanwhile you are just saying "I don't believe you." Without providing a counter argument.
You quoted more pro austerity articles, like ex:lavinia said:All except one of these articles - the nasty article in the Economist on Argentina - questions the imposition of austerity measures on countries. I choose these because the criticism of austerity seems to me to be a new thesis among economists. The future of this debate may change international lending.
The Krugman article on austerity in Italy is reposted because it warns that austerity can lead to political extremism.
Some of my colleagues on the trading floor began to think that in any loan, the lender should share equally in the risk with the borrower. This would lessen unwise lending and would protect both parties from a painful aftermath. One could argue that increased risk to the lender would slow the pace of lending and I do not doubt that that is probably true. What the right balance is still seems to be under debate.
Czcibor said:Would you like to invest money in gov debt where you share serious risk? Or maybe you'd look for a different, safer investment? Just say how would you do with your own money?
I have no real interest in defending all billionaires, but a valid explanation may be a given society's poorly-designed reward system or a willingness to sacrifice all aspects of one's life towards making money.Brunelli said:If you repeat a lie often enough it will end as a truth and as a normal state of things. It would be incorporated into the culture's mental or cognitive schemes and as such it feels natural. It becomes part of the collective "archetype". Did not a Nazi already said this?
Well, plain logic dictates that no human can alone, by its own work, produce so much that it can make him billionaire by own means. Indeed, the riches are thieves when defined this way. Of course, some thieves are good persons and others are not. Many of these thieves are just prisoners of their time, a product of their culture. The riches and capitalism is a brake for further development at some point. <Snip>
On the other hand, a very thoughtful workingman observedBrunelli said:There are studies that shows that, at the group level, rich people are narcissistic and have a grandiose self image, and think they deserve their position because they worked hard for it and did the work alone (seems the others are then seem as objects or means to get rich).
I resent those who become successful without making contributions, those who game the system in their favor to make it harder for others to rise. But success itself, however measured, no. Ultimately, the stability of a system depends on whether the average person considers the rewards, the system itself to be fair (according to each person's definition). With all his flaws, FWIW , I respect Steve Jobs more than I do Gates, whose interest seemed to be only in winning at any cost, while Jobs wanted to win, while producing something that elicited a sense of wonder, and was willing -- and did -- pay the price he had to pay in order to see his vision through.jim hardy said:On the other hand, a very thoughtful workingman observed
“The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority.”
― Eric Hoffer
Do you resent successful people?
That is not true. Especially in this day and age. A Rolling Stones album will lead to a Rolling Stones Tour. The "Steel Wheels" tour had over a $billion in ticket sales, and large sales of every digital copy of the album.Brunelli said:Well, plain logic dictates that no human can alone, by its own work, produce so much that it can make him billionaire by own means. Indeed, the riches are thieves when defined this way.