The Kids (Aren't) Alright - World Happiness Report

[Nivek 17417]

Individuals cannot close the income gap, but collectively we can help with government intervention.   There is no political will to do so.  

[MissingInAction 25563]

Didn't anyone ever think to stop being poor?

[DixonHur 11967]

43 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Individuals cannot close the income gap, but collectively we can help with government intervention.   There is no political will to do so.  

Agreed.

The ideal situation, IMO, would be the elimination (or limitation) of inheritance.  

The tribes in central California used to burn all the possessions of tribal members when they died to maintain relative equality...IE no generational wealth.  I'm not suggesting burning assets, but some sort of redistribution of "excess" wealth, seems reasonable. 

The idea being that parents use their assets, during their lifetimes, to set their children up for future success, but that attaining success is the responsibility of the children themselves.

Obviously, this is more a philosophical discussion than a practical one, since it would never happen, but studying historical examples could lead to new ideas about closing the wealth gap.  

[956 Worldwide 35598]

1 hour ago, Helobious said:

BJJ is exceptional for confidence building. It gives people that would stand no chance in any real fight belief that they could hold their own. 

BJJ is legit, I’m very much just getting to know it although I have some background in boxing as another combat sport.  You can train full speed and full strength.  It is a sport and like any combat sport it’s not designed for a “real fight.”  Plenty of things in BJJ are extremely useful in a self-defense scenario. And the experience I have training matches BabaYagas, cool and chill people who just like to train and share knowledge.
 

Anytime I hear about “winning” “real/street fights” my eyes roll in my head. There’s really not scenarios where you “win” a real fight and it’s not something non-criminal humans should be concerned with.  Self-defense is about ending a fight and getting in a better place and BJJ offers a lot of that, like how to get yourself off the ground when you don’t want to be there, how to place some aggressive asshole on the ground quick so you can leave, or how to get drunk Uncle Steve who has gotten out of hand in a place to rethink what he’s doing at the reunion. It gets you comfortable with contact and helps you not panic if things escalate. It’s not for continuing that scenario and “winning” the fight. These are the most likely scenarios of self-defense, not squaring up with some other trained fighter outside somewhere.
 

Self-defense is not about winning fights. If you get sucker punched and never see it coming you’re fucked no matter what you trained.  If you get jumped by several guys who want to stomp you, you’re fucked. If someone has a knife or gun, you’re most likely fucked. In those scenarios the best and only option is the nearest exit and space. 
 

If you’re the type of asshole who wants to get into and “win” real fights on the street, then you belong in jail and not the gym. Just get yourself some brass knuckles or a knife because the type of people you’ll be “fighting” don’t have any scruples. “Real fights”’are just bullshit. 

Edited May 10 by 956 Worldwide

[Helobious 9823]

You sound like you’d lose in a real fight 

[Nivek 17417]

Agreed.
The ideal situation, IMO, would be the elimination (or limitation) of inheritance.  
The tribes in central California used to burn all the possessions of tribal members when they died to maintain relative equality...IE no generational wealth.  I'm not suggesting burning assets, but some sort of redistribution of "excess" wealth, seems reasonable. 
The idea being that parents use their assets, during their lifetimes, to set their children up for future success, but that attaining success is the responsibility of the children themselves.
Obviously, this is more a philosophical discussion than a practical one, since it would never happen, but studying historical examples could lead to new ideas about closing the wealth gap.  

Going after inheritance is also wrong. Individuals who skimped and saved but then suddenly passed away likely didn’t give their children the advantages others had who relied on social security solely for their retirement.

Also if parents have kids with disabilities you are dooming them solely to the mercy of the state to manage it.

Efforts should be made to change the tax code and close the loopholes and shelters that are exploited.

[immamac 44387]

7 hours ago, F250 said:

This was my first thought when watching that TED Talk. Galloway begins with the question "do you love your children?" After making the point that of course the audience loves their children he immediately transitions to the war on youth and starts discussing problems that primarily impact children of the middle and lower class.

The disconnect is that his audience is likely made up of the upper and upper-middle class who don’t give a fuck about other people's children, especially the children of the lower classes. Everyone is going to take care of their own and let the others be fodder as long as their own children thrive.

My point was I’m a kid 30 something person who needs to strongly influence other 30 something’s to do the right shit. Like raise their kids right, get involved in the community, get I no loved with positive influence etc. it’s not my job to raise your kids. It’s my job to hold you accountable for doing a shit job raising your kids. 

3 hours ago, Nivek said:

Individuals cannot close the income gap, but collectively we can help with government intervention.   There is no political will to do so.  

This. So much this. The collective accountability of government is how this is solved. 

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Agreed.

The ideal situation, IMO, would be the elimination (or limitation) of inheritance.  

The tribes in central California used to burn all the possessions of tribal members when they died to maintain relative equality...IE no generational wealth.  I'm not suggesting burning assets, but some sort of redistribution of "excess" wealth, seems reasonable. 

The idea being that parents use their assets, during their lifetimes, to set their children up for future success, but that attaining success is the responsibility of the children themselves.

Obviously, this is more a philosophical discussion than a practical one, since it would never happen, but studying historical examples could lead to new ideas about closing the wealth gap.  

This just ain’t it. A general tax on assets over a certain amount (billionaire tax) is a better use of philosophical discussion time as it solves the universal problem of being too wealthy. 

[Howlin wolf 133]

On 5/9/2024 at 10:20 AM, SydneyCarton said:

I'd like you to support that with an actual explanation and sources. In Texas costs for public college have soared because politics got invovled. Specifically at Texas the lack of adoption of certain curriculum and admission expansion meant a decrease in public funds. Is that what you mean by "government intervention?" Because that's not the vibe I got from your post. 

Instead of going down the list of interventions I think we can sum it up thusly. 

 

What are the 3 areas/industries where governments and polticians work the hardest to make things “affordable” for the average citizen?

Housing, healthcare, higher education. 

These are 3 industries/purchases that have easily outpaced inflation over the last few decades. Perhaps more than any other. (I dont feel like looking up sources right now)

I could list the most recent interventions in a couple of those areas that will obviously keep pushing prices up, but CR jumps in. 

[Howlin wolf 133]

3 hours ago, DixonHur said:

The ideal situation, IMO, would be the elimination (or limitation) of inheritance.

What a terrible idea. One of the worst I've seen on this site actually. 

You're welcome to give up everything you have at death, but one of the great motivators for a lot of people is what legacy and wealth to leave to your children and their children. 

My guess is you have no children. 

[DixonHur 11967]

23 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Going after inheritance is also wrong. Individuals who skimped and saved but then suddenly passed away likely didn’t give their children the advantages others had who relied on social security solely for their retirement.

Also if parents have kids with disabilities you are dooming them solely to the mercy of the state to manage it.

Efforts should be made to change the tax code and close the loopholes and shelters that are exploited.

Disagree, because those types to situations are relatively rare, and can be accounted for.  You can take into account what parents could be expected to spend on their children to get them to a point of self-sufficiency....and I'm not talking about bare minimums, because I'm assuming you're talking about people of substantial means.

That's why I used the term "excess" wealth.  

For example, let's say the parents die young....to make things easy, let's assume one child (age 12) and parents die in car crash...but somehow managed to accumulate $50m in net worth before dying.  What if, instead of inheriting the full $50m, they got say $5M.  At 3% interest...assuming they put everything into a savings account...that's $150,000 a year forever without touching the principle.  You don't think that's enough to get the kid set up?

Note:  Average return of a mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 has returned over 9%/year inclusive of the great depression.  So, 3% is way low.

3 minutes ago, Howlin wolf said:

What a terrible idea. One of the worst I've seen on this site actually. 

You're welcome to give up everything you have at death, but one of the great motivators for a lot of people is what legacy and wealth to leave to your children and their children. 

My guess is you have no children. 

So what's the "great motivator" for the kids?

[DixonHur 11967]

4 minutes ago, Howlin wolf said:

What a terrible idea. One of the worst I've seen on this site actually. 

LO-fucking L...you just joined on Wednesday.

[Howlin wolf 133]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So what's the "great motivator" for the kids?

Carrying on that legacy. It's not perfect. There are plenty of losers that inherit huge amounts but amount to nothing. But people that are smart enough and work hard enough to make something to pass on to their kids are more likely to have kids that have the same capabilities over time. Compounds 

 

The alternative of giving it to the collective. “Burning it” figuratively is so backward and communist honestly. Ridiculous. And I'll take your brushing off my kid's question as an admission you have none. 

 

[DixonHur 11967]

13 minutes ago, Howlin wolf said:

Carrying on that legacy. It's not perfect. There are plenty of losers that inherit huge amounts but amount to nothing. But people that are smart enough and work hard enough to make something to pass on to their kids are more likely to have kids that have the same capabilities over time. Compounds 

 

The alternative of giving it to the collective. “Burning it” figuratively is so backward and communist honestly. Ridiculous. And I'll take your brushing off my kid's question as an admission you have none. 

 

Maybe pick up a book and learn what communism is before making such an uninformed comment.

But perhaps reading isn't your strong suit since I literally said "I'm not suggesting burning assets"...but to casually toss aside an idea that worked for thousands of years in different parts of the world is astonishing.  You know what happens when we refuse to learn from history, right? 

Anyway, I didn't comment on your kids for 3 reasons...one, I don't give a shit, and two, it has nothing to do with the conversation, and three I seriously doubt you have generational wealth.  I know I don't.

These fine folks, many of whom have kids, have pledged to give most of their money away....how many of their children do you think will be "disadvantaged" because of it?  As opposed to the number of people who will benefit?  If that's "communism" then sign me up.

The Giving Pledge - Wikipedia

[Howlin wolf 133]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Maybe pick up a book and learn what communism is before making such an uninformed comment.

Would you prefer collectivist? I'm not sure what else to call giving up most, or all, of your wealth to the state at death.  

 

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

to casually toss aside an idea that worked for thousands of years in different parts of the world is astonishing. 

What were the living standards for those thousands of years in those various tribal communities?

 

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

 

These fine folks, many of whom have kids, have pledged to give most of their money away....how many of their children do you think will be "disadvantaged" because of it?  As opposed to the number of people who will benefit?  If that's "communism" then sign me up.

The Giving Pledge - Wikipedia

These people are very welcome to do that. I would guess their kids are still getting substantial assets to make it through life. That's the thing. It shouldn't be up to the state to confiscate people’s wealth at death. 

11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Anyway, I didn't comment on your kids for 3 reasons...one, I don't give a shit, and two, it has nothing to do with the conversation, and three I seriously doubt you have generational wealth.  I know I don't.

My kids weren't mentioned. It was your lack of kids. Which is fine. Again a personal choice. But to be someone without kids, advocating for eliminating inheritance and population decline is a chef’s kiss. 

[Nivek 17417]

@DixonHur It is relatively rare? The national average of kids with LD’s is 15% of the student population. The issue is you might not be able to tell from afar.

In your example, you are now requiring the state or a trust to manage money for someone who might not be able to do so. The whole thing gets real complicated real quick. This injection of cash to the state doesn’t address the fundamental issue of how the disparity of wealth was created and exacerbated and without addressing the tax code, it does no good at all. Just makes some people feel better.

[DixonHur 11967]

I get it...that's exactly why I said it wasn't practical and would never happen.

I presented what I considered the ideal.  Just as Plato did with the Republic, the idea is to consider the ideal and then back into the workable 

[F250 29203]

2 hours ago, Howlin wolf said:

What a terrible idea. One of the worst I've seen on this site actually. 

You're welcome to give up everything you have at death, but one of the great motivators for a lot of people is what legacy and wealth to leave to your children and their children. 

My guess is you have no children. 

It's an interesting concept. Thomas Jefferson floated the idea as a means for leveling the field to allow for the emergence of a natural aristocracy. It's probably the best way to allow for a meritocracy where the truly talented would thrive rather than those born on third base.

[F250 29203]

1 hour ago, BeardIP said:

This strikes me as the complete opposite of what America was built upon and stands for. You’ll get less political support for this than most anything else you can think of to solve this issue 

Eh, promogeniture was mostly rejected in the United States. Granted, this is specific to the first born male inheriting property but the idea of generational wealth being passed down was more of a British concept than an American one. Americans were trying to break from the feudal practices of Europe that lead to aristocratics or oligarchs.

The concept is very American.

[fattyflattie 4640]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

If that's "communism" then sign me up.

 

Yeah. This is our surprised face.  
 

I wouldn’t gaf about $$$ if it wasn’t based on what I’m providing for my kids.  Doing everything I can now to help them navigate the shit show that is tomorrow. Others’ parents should consider doing the same. If not, “bad luck” I guess. 

[Captainant 28574]

10 hours ago, Howlin wolf said:

What are the 3 areas/industries where governments and polticians work the hardest to make things “affordable” for the average citizen?

Housing, healthcare, higher education. 

These are 3 industries/purchases that have easily outpaced inflation over the last few decades. Perhaps more than any other. (I dont feel like looking up sources right now)

Lol it's the government that's been greedily inflating profit margins and replacing my school board with covid and election truthers that are trying to destroy the district? Give me a fucking break, GRUhorn. 

[Snake Diggity 4714]

11 hours ago, Howlin wolf said:

What a terrible idea. One of the worst I've seen on this site actually. 

You're welcome to give up everything you have at death, but one of the great motivators for a lot of people is what legacy and wealth to leave to your children and their children. 

My guess is you have no children. 

My guess is you’re a fucking idiot who has neither generational wealth nor even a basic understanding of how capitalism works.

[Hank Kingsley 21798]

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It isn't performative faux humility (or it shouldn't be).  It should be real.  Be humble.  Be kind.  Use what you have been given to do good.  Be aware of other people's situations, which are often no more their fault than your situation (and advantage) is your fault.  Have some empathy, which goes hand-in-hand with humility.

DON'T be the guy born on third base who brags about how he hit a triple, making fun of all of those people stuck standing at the plate without even a bat.

It absolutely needs to be real, and our actions mean as much if not more than any discussions we have with our kids. My kindergartner is a willing listener and joins in the discussion in the car when I bring up empathy and kindness. But the most important thing we can do is walk the walk. They notice and absorb that at a very young age. 

 

[Nivek 17417]

America is the land of fortune and fame and the American Dream is literally the idea that you can be a nobody poor and strike it rich. From literal gold rushes to modern day metaphorical gold rushes (if I have to hear the analogy of nVidia being a picks and shovels company again, I'll pull what's left of my hair out), the idea is some mix of risk, moxie, balls, skill, meritocracy, ideas/foresight, and execution can create generational wealth for you and yours and you can enter the strata of rich that the other countries that the early Americans fled from could only dream and it wasn't a real possibility.

You forgot luck. Randomness is something we look to blame when it doesn’t work out, but something we owe to our genius and risk taking venture when it rewards us.

[Brisketexan 106952]

It absolutely needs to be real, and our actions mean as much if not more than any discussions we have with our kids. My kindergartner is a willing listener and joins in the discussion in the car when I bring up empathy and kindness. But the most important thing we can do is walk the walk. They notice and absorb that at a very young age. 
 

100%. I’m very fortunate that my wife is great at living that out all the time. Our kids grew up in a house where we’ve taken people in, given freely, etc., and it was ingrained in them in a “this is how you’re supposed to do life” kind of way. All the conversations and such help, but the example…especially when it’s hard or inconvenient, is what drives it home.

[TwiceHorn 32087]

Well, DixonHur is right that escheat of wealth to the state was a common practice for most of history.  But it wasn't intended as beneficial for anyone except the crown/ruler/monarch and whatever trickle down to the nobles and serfs he or she decided to provide.  It was an accouterment of the fact that the crown/state owned all property subject to revocable grants to citizens.  (I am excluding/ignoring here more primitive societies that may have more collectivist motives in taking property on death).

Britain changed that in 1540.  And I think that became somewhat symbolic if not a necessary feature of a classically liberal society.

So, yeah in some ways that's "unamerican" in the sense that we attempted to bring over the best aspects of a classically liberal society and government from Britain, which included ownership of private property and the right to designate heirs to that property on death.

But complete escheat (forfeit) of property to the state on death is not (quite) the same thing as taxation on death, even fairly confiscatory taxation.

I do think it's probably a better idea to tax wealth in some way during life to avoid the accumulation of grotesque estates that can be inherited.  If nothing else, it smooths the cash flow.

Edited May 11 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 28574]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I do think it's probably a better idea to tax wealth in some way during life to avoid the accumulation of grotesque estates that can be inherited.  If nothing else, it smooths the cash flow.

The real issue is the money going up the economic ladder and then stagnating up there. It isn't getting turned around and spent on the business or on the employees that made the surplus - it goes to shareholders and outside interests that don't generate value and merely trade on it. 

There's a real issue happening where on paper billionaires (thanks to a large value of stocks) can get loans against their paper to turn it into cash and never pay taxes on it, since debt isn't taxable. It's causing that money to leave the economic cycle and just become hoarded, while still inflicting inflation on the economy at large

[immamac 44387]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The real issue is the money going up the economic ladder and then stagnating up there. It isn't getting turned around and spent on the business or on the employees that made the surplus - it goes to shareholders and outside interests that don't generate value and merely trade on it. 

There's a real issue happening where on paper billionaires (thanks to a large value of stocks) can get loans against their paper to turn it into cash and never pay taxes on it, since debt isn't taxable. It's causing that money to leave the economic cycle and just become hoarded, while still inflicting inflation on the economy at large

This is the issue. It’s that it doesn’t get spent and it doesn’t really get invested either. It’s all paper funny money and it’s only purpose is to generate more paper funny money after a certain degree of unspendability. 

[956 Worldwide 35598]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, DixonHur is right that escheat of wealth to the state was a common practice for most of history.  But it wasn't intended as beneficial for anyone except the crown/ruler/monarch and whatever trickle down to the nobles and serfs he or she decided to provide.  It was an accouterment of the fact that the crown/state owned all property subject to revocable grants to citizens.  (I am excluding/ignoring here more primitive societies that may have more collectivist motives in taking property on death).

Britain changed that in 1540.  And I think that became somewhat symbolic if not a necessary feature of a classically liberal society.

So, yeah in some ways that's "unamerican" in the sense that we attempted to bring over the best aspects of a classically liberal society and government from Britain, which included ownership of private property and the right to designate heirs to that property on death.

But complete escheat (forfeit) of property to the state on death is not (quite) the same thing as taxation on death, even fairly confiscatory taxation.

I do think it's probably a better idea to tax wealth in some way during life to avoid the accumulation of grotesque estates that can be inherited.  If nothing else, it smooths the cash flow.

In England escheatment only occurred if the land-holder died without heirs or committed a felony.  If it was a feudal felony, it reverted to the overlord and if it was treason it reverted to the Crown. The inheritance to the estate followed primogeniture. The law of wills allowed you to bypass primogeniture and leave two-thirds to anyone you named in a will.  But before that estates didn’t automatically return to the crown upon death, and this was the whole reason nobles of all stripes obsessed over having male sons. 
 

It’s not a terrible idea to bring back a modified form of this— allow you to leave it property to certain defined relatives that you may choose, or things like charities that you don’t control and to levy a 1/3 tax across the board.  The practice of leaving things in trust to cats or to your foundation that then pays your kids’ salaries is not an engine of economic vigor. 

[Nivek 17417]

   

delete

Edited May 11 by Nivek
already talked about

[F250 29203]

6 hours ago, BeardIP said:

America is the land of fortune and fame and the American Dream is literally the idea that you can be a nobody poor and strike it rich. From literal gold rushes to modern day metaphorical gold rushes (if I have to hear the analogy of nVidia being a picks and shovels company again, I'll pull what's left of my hair out), the idea is some mix of risk, moxie, balls, skill, meritocracy, ideas/foresight, and execution can create generational wealth for you and yours and you can enter the strata of rich that the other countries that the early Americans fled from could only dream and it wasn't a real possibility.

Oh yeah, I think Weber covered this in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Wait, no it wasn't in that work. Tocqueville probably observed this and addressed it in Democracy in America. Oh, that's not right either.

This must have come from a 1980s movie.

[DixonHur 11967]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, DixonHur is right that escheat of wealth to the state was a common practice for most of history.  But it wasn't intended as beneficial for anyone except the crown/ruler/monarch and whatever trickle down to the nobles and serfs he or she decided to provide.  It was an accouterment of the fact that the crown/state owned all property subject to revocable grants to citizens.  (I am excluding/ignoring here more primitive societies that may have more collectivist motives in taking property on death).

As @956 Worldwide points out escheat was only when there were no heirs.

Secondly, we don't live under a "crown/ruler/monarch".  If we don't trust our government, then perhaps it's time for a new form of government...but that's a topic for CR, not here.

Here we're just dealing with hypothetical ideas...the implementation of which may or may not require changes to the government.

Finally, I really take umbrage to the classification of "primitive societies".  This is an old trope that needs to die...that of the noble savage.  Speaking specifically about tribal cultures in the "new world", Jesuit priests wrote about their customs and even brought a few Native Americans to Europe for dialogs about their culture...this is exactly what sparked the "enlightenment" in Europe to take place.  But the Europeans didn't adopt all of the ideas because they thought the Indians were too naive to understand the complexities of society.  

However, recent archeological and anthropological evidence suggests the opposite.  They were acutely aware of the dangers associated with central rule (before the Europeans arrived) and worked hard to avoid them.  In fact, the considered the Europeans to be slaves to their governments.  

[TwiceHorn 32087]

My only point is that the right or ability to pass down wealth or property has been at best conditional throughout most of history.

The unfettered right to devise wealth or property is a relatively recent development, although it has attained almost "human right" status in that it seems to be a feature of most post-medieval societies that are regarded as advanced (whether they actually are or not).

So, maybe it shouldn't be regarded as something sacrosanct.

Nevertheless, as Captainant elucidated, it may be better to tax/confiscate that wealth before it accumulates to better keep the assets productive for anyone except the owner.

[Brisketexan 106952]

My only point is that the right or ability to pass down wealth or property has been at best conditional throughout most of history.
The unfettered right to devise wealth or property is a relatively recent development, although it has attained almost "human right" status in that it seems to be a feature of most post-medieval societies that are regarded as advanced (whether they actually are or not).
So, maybe it shouldn't be regarded as something sacrosanct.
Nevertheless, as Captainant elucidated, it may be better to tax/confiscate that wealth before it accumulates to better keep the assets productive for anyone except the owner.

The real problem is that we have a system (not unique in that respect) where money = power. And as that accumulates, it creates outsized power.
Do I mind that Elon Musk (a multimillionaire largely because he was staked with inherited/gifted wealth) has gobs of money? That doesn’t bother me, per se. What bothers me is the outsized power it gives him, and that he actually wields it. Whether you agree with his positions or not, it’s harmful for one man to wield that much fucking power. Note that if all he was doing with his money was two chicks at the same time and a collection of classic cars and all that other rich dude shit, I wouldn’t care. I’m not “jealous of his wealth.” Whether he has gilded toilets and such doesn’t affect my life, community, or world. But the fact that his billions give him outsized power, which he then uses, is a fucking problem. Same with Tim Dunn in Texas - have your oil billions, be all up in your church’s business…but fuck you for thinking you get to control every person in Texas because you have the money/power to do so.
Would a more stout inheritance/wealth tax help rein that in some? Maybe.

[DixonHur 11967]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Whether he has gilded toilets and such doesn’t affect my life, community, or world.

I agree with 99% of what you said, but do think the above matters.  I'm not jealous of his wealth...or anyone's really, but I think things like golden toilets, 50-carat diamond rings, a fleet of private jets, 400 ft yachts, a warehouse full of classic cars, etc. is a sign of something more sinister.  It's wasteful, and basically a fuck you to the rest of the world.  

Yes, I know you're starving, but how am I supposed to poop without a golden toilet?!  

I'm not suggesting everyone needs to be at the same level financially, or even that people shouldn't have nicer clothes, cars, houses, etc., if they have more money, but there's a point where it just becomes obscene.  That's what I'd like to correct...I'm also not suggesting that the only way to do that is capturing excess wealth after death.  That was my initial thought, because I didn't want to punish people for making money.  I just think when that money reaches a certain level, it shouldn't all be passed to the next generation because it creates an aristocracy and reinforces the false notion that people with money are better than those without it.

For "in lifetime" correction, I'd suggest a maximum wage, among other things.  For example, there is no reason the CEO of a company should earn, on average, 344x the average employee...which it was in 2022...and it's only getting worse.

For comparison, in 1965 it was 21x.  That's just shameless greed IMO.

[956 Worldwide 35598]

I’m not really super interested in correcting ratios or conspicuous consumption; I’m concerned with raising the floors above the basement for everyone.  Getting upset about someone else having “obscene” wealth is meaningless in a vacuum, it’s just jealousy— reminded of experiments where monkeys are fine eve both monkeys get one treat each, but then they lose their shit if one monkey gets two treats and the other monkey gets four. Wealth only becomes obscene when there are people can’t afford the fundamentals while a few others have private jets. 
 

If we could build a society where everyone had clean and safe housing, ample healthy food, access to medical care when sick that won’t bankrupt you, education for all and excellent education for any who can handle it, clean air and water, safe cities and neighborhoods—-then great, I’m fine with a tax rate of zero and accumulation of infinite billions for anyone who can do it.

In practice, it’s not possible and I’m fine for a balance where taking risks and innovating is rewarded while at the same time ensuring that the risk of failure or simply choosing to pursue an ordinary life does not mean catastrophe. 

[DixonHur 11967]

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m not really super interested in correcting ratios or conspicuous consumption; I’m concerned with raising the floors above the basement for everyone.  Getting upset about someone else having “obscene” wealth is meaningless in a vacuum, it’s just jealousy— reminded of experiments where monkeys are fine eve both monkeys get one treat each, but then they lose their shit if one monkey gets two treats and the other monkey gets four. Wealth only becomes obscene when there are people can’t afford the fundamentals while a few others have private jets. 
 

If we could build a society where everyone had clean and safe housing, ample healthy food, access to medical care when sick that won’t bankrupt you, education for all and excellent education for any who can handle it, clean air and water, safe cities and neighborhoods—-then great, I’m fine with a tax rate of zero and accumulation of infinite billions for anyone who can do it.

In practice, it’s not possible and I’m fine for a balance where taking risks and innovating is rewarded while at the same time ensuring that the risk of failure or simply choosing to pursue an ordinary life does not mean catastrophe. 

Here are the issues I have with this view...mind you, I respect your right to have it, I just don't agree.

You say you want to raise the floor, not correct ratios.  Ok, how?  You can't raise the floor without money and that money is tied up in the hands of the elite...and outside a relatively few generous billionaires planning to donate after death, they've shown zero signs of giving up that wealth to help raise the floor.

The Top 1% hold 30% or America's wealth...the Top 10% gets you to nearly 70%....whereas the bottom 50% hold just 2.5% of the wealth.  That means the Top 10% hold $92 Trillion in assets, while the bottom 50% have about $3.4 Trillion.  And it's not getting better (see image below spoilered due to ssize)

In other words, if you took just 10% of the assets of the Top 10%, leaving them with a paltry $83 Trillion, and redistributed it to the bottom 50% you would almost quadruple their wealth.  Isn't that you're stated goal?  To raise the basement?

If you see another way to accomplish your goal, I'm all ears, please enlighten me.

This is not "jealousy"...I, like most here, live a comfortable life.  It's an exercise of human value and the promotion of meritocracy.  

Spoiler

Visualizing Wealth Distribution in America (1990-2023) (visualcapitalist.com)

[956 Worldwide 35598]

25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Here are the issues I have with this view...mind you, I respect your right to have it, I just don't agree.

You say you want to raise the floor, not correct ratios.  Ok, how?  You can't raise the floor without money and that money is tied up in the hands of the elite...and outside a relatively few generous billionaires planning to donate after death, they've shown zero signs of giving up that wealth to help raise the floor.

The Top 1% hold 30% or America's wealth...the Top 10% gets you to nearly 70%....whereas the bottom 50% hold just 2.5% of the wealth.  That means the Top 10% hold $92 Trillion in assets, while the bottom 50% have about $3.4 Trillion.  And it's not getting better (see image below spoilered due to ssize)

In other words, if you took just 10% of the assets of the Top 10%, leaving them with a paltry $83 Trillion, and redistributed it to the bottom 50% you would almost quadruple their wealth.  Isn't that you're stated goal?  To raise the basement?

If you see another way to accomplish your goal, I'm all ears, please enlighten me.

This is not "jealousy"...I, like most here, live a comfortable life.  It's an exercise of human value and the promotion of meritocracy.  

  Reveal hidden contents

Visualizing Wealth Distribution in America (1990-2023) (visualcapitalist.com)

Well, but you’ve just done a bait and switch from a deontological argument (it’s morally wrong to allow massive wealth accumulation) to a consequentialist one (it’s wrong to allow massive wealth accumulation because it leads to undesirable and unavoidable outcomes). I am not with you on the first but even said I am with you on the second in my post. 
 

I am fine—embrace even— taxation and redistribution of wealth to ensure that everyone can lead a dignified life and have the opportunity to flourish, innovate, and take risks.  I am not fine with simply pursuing some ratio of equality for its own sake because we have ample evidence that will end in disaster and because simply achieving an ideal equality ratio is no guarantee you get the things I do value— a dignified and flourishing life, etc. 

[DixonHur 11967]

22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Well, but you’ve just done a bait and switch from a deontological argument (it’s morally wrong to allow massive wealth accumulation) to a consequentialist one (it’s wrong to allow massive wealth accumulation because it leads to undesirable and unavoidable outcomes). I am not with you on the first but even said I am with you on the second in my post. 

Lol, at bait and switch...if there was a shift in position it is so negligible as to be nearly imperceptible.

I honestly don't see the pedantic distinction / point you're making.

[956 Worldwide 35598]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Lol, at bait and switch...if there was a shift in position it is so negligible as to be nearly imperceptible.

I honestly don't see the pedantic distinction / point you're making.

Put into practice it’s the pedantic distinction between East Germany and Norway. 

[DixonHur 11967]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Put into practice it’s the pedantic distinction between East Germany and Norway. 

I think you've lost the plot, but I'm looking forward to your reasoning.

[956 Worldwide 35598]

19 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I think you've lost the plot, but I'm looking forward to your reasoning.

I’m sorry you’re not familiar with the long history of making policy to achieve defined and pragmatic outcomes vs. making policy to achieve ideological and moralistic outcomes. 

[DixonHur 11967]

Lol, sorry, I didn't realize we had a Nobel prize winning economist on Surly.

Please, Mr. Krugman, give us the high points of my "bait and switch" points of view, and what the ever-loving fuck they have to do with East Germany and Norway?  I don't see anything in my posts about State ownership of the means of production, but perhaps I missed typing it.

And while you're at it, why don't you grace us with your solution to income equality and how you plan to pay for it without, you know, money.

[956 Worldwide 35598]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Lol, sorry, I didn't realize we had a Nobel prize winning economist on Surly.

Please, Mr. Krugman, give us the high points of my "bait and switch" points of view, and what the ever-loving fuck they have to do with East Germany and Norway?  I don't see anything in my posts about State ownership of the means of production, but perhaps I missed typing it.

And while you're at it, why don't you grace us with your solution to income equality and how you plan to pay for it without, you know, money.

My solution is to increase taxes on the wealthy and use them to pay for things like house and food and education and medicine and pensions. Where did you get a different idea? 
  

[DixonHur 11967]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

My solution is to increase taxes on the wealthy and use them to pay for things like house and food and education and medicine and pensions. Where did you get a different idea? 
  

Ok, you're fine with taxes on the ultra-wealthy on the backend...which is easy to game, but not ok with limiting income on the front end.  Is that a fair assessment?

Meaning you're fine with a non-founder CEO earning 344x the average FTE (note, not the lowest)...because you think he/she has somehow taken more risk than the average employee?  And he/she provides 344x the value as anyone else?  And further CEOs are 1,400% more valuable to a company today than they were 60 years ago?  

If so, I respectfully disagree.  

[956 Worldwide 35598]

14 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Ok, you're fine with taxes on the ultra-wealthy on the backend...which is easy to game, but not ok with limiting income on the front end.  Is that a fair assessment?

Meaning you're fine with a non-founder CEO earning 344x the average FTE (note, not the lowest)...because you think he/she has somehow taken more risk than the average employee?  And he/she provides 344x the value as anyone else?  And further CEOs are 1,400% more valuable to a company today than they were 60 years ago?  

If so, I respectfully disagree.  

I do not give a shit about “fair” when it comes to wealth, I give a shit about quality of life for citizens and outcomes.  If tomorrow I could wave a wand, and 320 million Americans had the lifestyle and opportunities of someone who makes 500k per year while 10 million Americans made 1,000 percent more and all had diamond crusted shitters, I’d call that a win. 
 

I have a problem with rising CEO compensation only as it creates bad outcomes and not because of some idea of cosmic unfairness. I think we should try to calculate the cost of doing what we want to do to provide people with a dignified life and then go collect the taxes to pay for it because I don’t see how setting a “income limit” gets us there. 

[DixonHur 11967]

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I do not give a shit about “fair” when it comes to wealth, I give a shit about quality of life for citizens and outcomes.  If tomorrow I could wave a wand, and 320 million Americans had the lifestyle and opportunities of someone who makes 500k per year while 10 million Americans made 1,000 percent more and all had diamond crusted shitters, I’d call that a win. 
 

I have a problem with rising CEO compensation only as it creates bad outcomes and not because of some idea of cosmic unfairness. I think we should try to calculate the cost of doing what we want to do to provide people with a dignified life and then go collect the taxes to pay for it because I don’t see how setting a “income limit” gets us there. 

You're insufferable in that you have no ethos...

"To the lucky go the spoils, but hey poor people, don't worry, we'll be sure to throw a couple crumbs your way, so you can live in a hut, and we don't have to step over you in the streets." 

[956 Worldwide 35598]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You're insufferable in that you have no ethos...

"To the lucky go the spoils, but hey poor people, don't worry, we'll be sure to throw a couple crumbs your way, so you can live in a hut, and we don't have to step over you in the streets." 

Lol, that’s what you got from “we should tax people so we have good housing and schools and medicine for everyone..” 

 

Edited May 12 by 956 Worldwide

[DixonHur 11967]

19 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Lol, that’s what you got from “we should tax people so we have good housing and schools and medicine for everyone..” 

 

Yes, because you're against them sharing in the success of the companies they work for, so to me that means fuck you I got mine...but we'll tax your boss a little more and give it to people even poorer than you.

Our CEO makes 34x what I do, and I'm probably in the top 5% of earners at the company...do you really think taxing him an extra 5% is going to reduce inequality? 

Edited May 12 by DixonHur

[956 Worldwide 35598]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Yes, because you're against them sharing in the success of the companies they work for, so to me that means fuck you I got mine...but we'll tax your boss a little more and give it to people even poorer than you.

I don’t consider good public education and better public healthcare “giving it to people poorer than me.”  I think that taxes for services and a social safety net is a fairly good model. 

[DixonHur 11967]

Last I checked taxes for schools were based on property taxes not income taxes... but wouldn't it also be nice if people earned a good wage?  Which would not only provide them with better living conditions, but also provide the government with more tax revenue from the higher wages?