Total Posts:138|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are the Rich getting Richer?

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 6:20:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Get out of here with your facts and logic.

It's much better to use senseless statistics that really have no meaning.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:20:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

The video's explanation is that the bottom 20% become say...the middle 20% and there are just new poor people coming in taking their place...
Weak argument.
Sapere Aude!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:32:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).

I have done that before. The poor have gotten richer. I'm fairly certain that chart is using CPI-US adjusted dollars anyway.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:38:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).

If you factor in the prices of modern goods, you should factor in the quality. An iPod is better than a radio. Think about it--regardless of the income statistics, would you rather be in the bottom quintile in 1980 or today? Clearly today--life today is much better than it was 30 years ago, for everyone.

I think if you're looking at equality, you should look at quality of life, not income. What's more equal--rich people having $1,000,000 Ferrari's and poor people having $5,000 crappy used cars, or rich people having $1,000 horse-drawn chariots and poor people having $5 pairs of shoes? Based on the amount of money, these are similar levels of inequality. But clearly the first situation is much more equal.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:41:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:38:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).

If you factor in the prices of modern goods, you should factor in the quality. An iPod is better than a radio. Think about it--regardless of the income statistics, would you rather be in the bottom quintile in 1980 or today? Clearly today--life today is much better than it was 30 years ago, for everyone.

I think if you're looking at equality, you should look at quality of life, not income. What's more equal--rich people having $1,000,000 Ferrari's and poor people having $5,000 crappy used cars, or rich people having $1,000 horse-drawn chariots and poor people having $5 pairs of shoes? Based on the amount of money, these are similar levels of inequality. But clearly the first situation is much more equal.

Good point.

+1...

... .5!
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:48:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:38:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).

If you factor in the prices of modern goods, you should factor in the quality. An iPod is better than a radio. Think about it--regardless of the income statistics, would you rather be in the bottom quintile in 1980 or today? Clearly today--life today is much better than it was 30 years ago, for everyone.

I think if you're looking at equality, you should look at quality of life, not income. What's more equal--rich people having $1,000,000 Ferrari's and poor people having $5,000 crappy used cars, or rich people having $1,000 horse-drawn chariots and poor people having $5 pairs of shoes? Based on the amount of money, these are similar levels of inequality. But clearly the first situation is much more equal.

Reminds me of Margaret Thatcher
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:55:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:38:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).

If you factor in the prices of modern goods, you should factor in the quality. An iPod is better than a radio. Think about it--regardless of the income statistics, would you rather be in the bottom quintile in 1980 or today? Clearly today--life today is much better than it was 30 years ago, for everyone.

I think if you're looking at equality, you should look at quality of life, not income. What's more equal--rich people having $1,000,000 Ferrari's and poor people having $5,000 crappy used cars, or rich people having $1,000 horse-drawn chariots and poor people having $5 pairs of shoes? Based on the amount of money, these are similar levels of inequality. But clearly the first situation is much more equal.

Great point.

But what about Europe, who have social programs so that people have higher income mobility?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:02:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:55:06 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:38:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).

If you factor in the prices of modern goods, you should factor in the quality. An iPod is better than a radio. Think about it--regardless of the income statistics, would you rather be in the bottom quintile in 1980 or today? Clearly today--life today is much better than it was 30 years ago, for everyone.

I think if you're looking at equality, you should look at quality of life, not income. What's more equal--rich people having $1,000,000 Ferrari's and poor people having $5,000 crappy used cars, or rich people having $1,000 horse-drawn chariots and poor people having $5 pairs of shoes? Based on the amount of money, these are similar levels of inequality. But clearly the first situation is much more equal.

Great point.

But what about Europe, who have social programs so that people have higher income mobility?

Europe also has lower income inequality.

Income mobility is a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, very very very stupid measure to use to compare two countries.

For example(numbers are as close to fact as I can recall).

Canada has a 450% difference between bottom 20% and top 20%. US has a 850% difference.

So u are a twin. You live in the US, your twin in Canada. You both have a job doing software programming that pays $20,000 USD.

Your twin, after 10 years, is making $85,000 USD. He has been SO MOBILE, that he went from the bottom 20% to the top 20%.

You, on the other hand, are only making $140,000 USD after 10 years. Poor you, you're only in the 4th quintile, you haven't made it to the top 20%. Obviously your twin is doing much, much better than you, because he is more mobile...

Right?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:20:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:55:06 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:38:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).

If you factor in the prices of modern goods, you should factor in the quality. An iPod is better than a radio. Think about it--regardless of the income statistics, would you rather be in the bottom quintile in 1980 or today? Clearly today--life today is much better than it was 30 years ago, for everyone.

I think if you're looking at equality, you should look at quality of life, not income. What's more equal--rich people having $1,000,000 Ferrari's and poor people having $5,000 crappy used cars, or rich people having $1,000 horse-drawn chariots and poor people having $5 pairs of shoes? Based on the amount of money, these are similar levels of inequality. But clearly the first situation is much more equal.

Great point.

But what about Europe, who have social programs so that people have higher income mobility?
Different genetics. http://econlog.econlib.org...

Also, in some ways, Europe is much less mobile. Take the labor market, for example. European labor market regulations mandate all sorts of benefits and make it very hard to fire workers. So companies are less likely to hire people, and the unemployment rate in Europe is much higher. You think our high unemployment rate now is bad? That's what it's always like in Europe (at least in the countries with more regulations and social programs--take Spain for an extreme example).
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:20:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In December we had a debate topic about whether income inequality in the United States undermines democratic ideals (whatever the hell that means.) Once you got past the bickering about what democratic ideals actually were, it was an interesting discussion. It's true that the ultra wealthy in the US are extraordinarily wealthy, but it's also true that compared to most other countries the lower class here is very well off. While the topic itself didnt go any further, it begs the question as to what we should do to mend the inequality, if we should at all. It might be a fine talking point, but the "1%" owning a lot doesn't hurt me as much as I would like a piece of that wealth myself, I didnt earn it. Someone in favor of redistribution: why do feel that certain people are entitled to the wealth of others and where is the line drawn? If much of the wealth of he "1%" is up for grabs, should we continue onto the 5%? 10%? 20%? 50%? (oh wait we already do that...). Why or why not?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 7:48:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 6:13:06 PM, DanT wrote:


They better be using figures adjusted for inflation. If $20,000 is middle class in 1980, and $6,000 or less is poor, and if a guy who was poor then finally makes $20,000 in 2010, I cannot consider him rich. Does this figure take this into account?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 7:53:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:38:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).

If you factor in the prices of modern goods, you should factor in the quality. An iPod is better than a radio. Think about it--regardless of the income statistics, would you rather be in the bottom quintile in 1980 or today? Clearly today--life today is much better than it was 30 years ago, for everyone.

I think if you're looking at equality, you should look at quality of life, not income. What's more equal--rich people having $1,000,000 Ferrari's and poor people having $5,000 crappy used cars, or rich people having $1,000 horse-drawn chariots and poor people having $5 pairs of shoes? Based on the amount of money, these are similar levels of inequality. But clearly the first situation is much more equal.

Specious.

The point of this thread is one of the biggest reasons why I support OWS protestors, for example.

The difference in what the rich can access and what the middle class can access is absurd. The rich, technologically speaking, are something like 20 to 50 years ahead of everyone else. They have longer lifespans, they're much less susceptible to disease and injury, they receive much, much better customer support, they get much greater tax levies, and believe it or not, rich people get an asssload of shiit for free, just because of their presume capacity for social influence.

It's painfully obvious that no one here lives in a household that generates anything more than $500-$600k.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 8:32:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 7:53:35 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:38:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:29:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:21:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:16:40 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Explain this then.

And that in absolute dollars, even the poor are getting richer. That's why the lines at the bottom of your chart go UP.

Factor inflation. And the price of modern goods compared to then (say, an ipod is more expensive than a radio).

If you factor in the prices of modern goods, you should factor in the quality. An iPod is better than a radio. Think about it--regardless of the income statistics, would you rather be in the bottom quintile in 1980 or today? Clearly today--life today is much better than it was 30 years ago, for everyone.

I think if you're looking at equality, you should look at quality of life, not income. What's more equal--rich people having $1,000,000 Ferrari's and poor people having $5,000 crappy used cars, or rich people having $1,000 horse-drawn chariots and poor people having $5 pairs of shoes? Based on the amount of money, these are similar levels of inequality. But clearly the first situation is much more equal.

Specious.

The point of this thread is one of the biggest reasons why I support OWS protestors, for example.

The difference in what the rich can access and what the middle class can access is absurd. The rich, technologically speaking, are something like 20 to 50 years ahead of everyone else. They have longer lifespans, they're much less susceptible to disease and injury, they receive much, much better customer support, they get much greater tax levies, and believe it or not, rich people get an asssload of shiit for free, just because of their presume capacity for social influence.

It's painfully obvious that no one here lives in a household that generates anything more than $500-$600k.

This is exactly why I have absolutely no sympathy for the OWS people. "Rich" isn't over $500k--for most of the world, even the average "poor" American is rich.

Also, "poor" people in the 1st world are less healthy than rich people because they make bad decisions. The average person in China has a longer lifespan than the average lower class American, even though they're much poorer. Why? Because the average Chinese person doesn't spend a ton of money on cigarettes, booze, and fast food, while the average lower class American does.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 8:40:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 8:32:28 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/2/2012 7:53:35 AM, Ren wrote:

This is exactly why I have absolutely no sympathy for the OWS people. "Rich" isn't over $500k--for most of the world, even the average "poor" American is rich.

Lol, that's funny. I thought homeless and/or starving is homeless and/or starving, no matter where you are. Clearly, you're not acquainted with many poor people.

In any case, I didn't even mention poor people. I mentioned the middle class, who typically work harder than the rich.

Lol, so, what do you consider "rich?" $50k/year?

You do realize that the upper 1% are all millionaires. In fact, the upper 1% refers to those who make at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

On the other hand, the reason why I figure that no one here makes greater than $500k per year, is because even those people live markedly different lives than the middle class, especially the blue collar middle class.

Lol, but once we get to the upper 1%, then you're looking at a different existence entirely, to the extent that it's unimaginable and unrecognizable to those that don't live it.

The reason why this is relevant (upper 1% versus the other 99%) is because the majority is who generates the majority of this country's wealth.

So, in other words, you have an asssload of people generating an asssload of money for this country, and only a handful are keeping it for themselves, while the rest of us bury our parents at the peak of their middle age, most often due to highly prevantable, though torturous and drawn-out diseases.

Also, "poor" people in the 1st world are less healthy than rich people because they make bad decisions.

Lmfao, like buying the only garbage they have access to from the only stores that will sell it to them, right?

The average person in China has a longer lifespan than the average lower class American,

Lmfaooooo, the average person in the U.S. has a longer lifespan than the average lower class American.

even though they're much poorer. Why? Because the average Chinese person doesn't spend a ton of money on cigarettes, booze, and fast food, while the average lower class American does.

Lmfaoooo, substantiation? Don't forget to take into account that they have an entirely different economic and political system than we do. I mean, on the other hand, you're not confined to Ubuntu, now are you? How does that Windows liberty feel?
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 9:07:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 8:40:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/2/2012 8:32:28 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/2/2012 7:53:35 AM, Ren wrote:

This is exactly why I have absolutely no sympathy for the OWS people. "Rich" isn't over $500k--for most of the world, even the average "poor" American is rich.

Lol, that's funny. I thought homeless and/or starving is homeless and/or starving, no matter where you are. Clearly, you're not acquainted with many poor people.
Even homeless Americans don't starve to death.
In any case, I didn't even mention poor people. I mentioned the middle class, who typically work harder than the rich.

Lol, so, what do you consider "rich?" $50k/year?
That's approximately the top 1% of workers in the world.
You do realize that the upper 1% are all millionaires. In fact, the upper 1% refers to those who make at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Nope. http://money.cnn.com...
On the other hand, the reason why I figure that no one here makes greater than $500k per year, is because even those people live markedly different lives than the middle class, especially the blue collar middle class.
Their lives are extremely similar, compared to the difference between the 1st world "middle class" and the global middle class.
Lol, but once we get to the upper 1%, then you're looking at a different existence entirely, to the extent that it's unimaginable and unrecognizable to those that don't live it.

The reason why this is relevant (upper 1% versus the other 99%) is because the majority is who generates the majority of this country's wealth.

So, in other words, you have an asssload of people generating an asssload of money for this country, and only a handful are keeping it for themselves, while the rest of us bury our parents at the peak of their middle age, most often due to highly prevantable, though torturous and drawn-out diseases.
Like malaria? Or tuberculosis? Or diarrhea? Oh wait--you must mean 'easily preventable' as in 'easily prevented by not being a retard' http://en.wikipedia.org...
The diseases Americans die of, like heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes, often are preventable--by eating healthier and not smoking.
Also, "poor" people in the 1st world are less healthy than rich people because they make bad decisions.

Lmfao, like buying the only garbage they have access to from the only stores that will sell it to them, right?
The only garbage they can buy is cigarettes and alcohol? As for food--they could afford to buy the average Chinese person's diet if they wanted to--fast food just tastes better. Or they could just eat less crappy food--5 Big Macs instead of 10.
The average person in China has a longer lifespan than the average lower class American,

Lmfaooooo, the average person in the U.S. has a longer lifespan than the average lower class American.
Because they make better decisions. If it were just income, then Chinese people would live shorter lifespans than than Americans. But they don't, because they live healthier lives.
even though they're much poorer. Why? Because the average Chinese person doesn't spend a ton of money on cigarettes, booze, and fast food, while the average lower class American does.

Lmfaoooo, substantiation? Don't forget to take into account that they have an entirely different economic and political system than we do. I mean, on the other hand, you're not confined to Ubuntu, now are you? How does that Windows liberty feel?
Yeah, it's their economic and political system--that's why their lifespans are so high. Fast food, alcohol, and cigarettes have very little effect on health compared to dictatorship vs. democracy (and it seems a dictator poltical system leads to longer lifespans--who knew?)
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 9:40:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 9:07:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Even homeless Americans don't starve to death.

??!!

That is a (false) speculative assumption.

In any case, I didn't even mention poor people. I mentioned the middle class, who typically work harder than the rich.

Lol, so, what do you consider "rich?" $50k/year?
That's approximately the top 1% of workers in the world.

Uhh, economies vary, resulting in exchange rates. In other words, the dollar bill isn't worth the same everywhere. The point isn't that there are poor people. The point is that people are not receiving the money they're generating, as those who receive it first keep most of it for themselves.

You do realize that the upper 1% are all millionaires. In fact, the upper 1% refers to those who make at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Nope. http://money.cnn.com...

Lol, I think CNN needs to make up it's mind ;)

"By comparison, 4.3% of households in the United States had wealth of over $1 million, which ranks it 7th in the world. "

http://money.cnn.com...

Lololol

Their lives are extremely similar, compared to the difference between the 1st world "middle class" and the global middle class.

Substantiation?

What is this "global middle class" you're referring to? Please tell me you're not including Third World countries in your figures. :|

Like malaria?

That doesn't exist in this country, wtf.

Or tuberculosis?

Yes.

Or diarrhea?

Diarrhea is not a diease, wtf.

Oh wait--you must mean 'easily preventable' as in 'easily prevented by not being a retard' http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, I can see how malignant neoplasms and influenza have everything to do with mental retardation.

The diseases Americans die of, like heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes, often are preventable--by eating healthier and not smoking.

Or, not being forced to exist among and ingest toxic substances... Ohhhh, wait, are you suggesting that it's just as easy for a poor person to eat healthily as it is for a rich person? That's a funny idea, how did you come to that conclusion? I can write you a book on why that alone is completley , 100% wrong.

The only garbage they can buy is cigarettes and alcohol?

I'm sorry, are you really averring that only poor and middle class people smoke and drink?

Lmfao, are you really saying that?

As for food--they could afford to buy the average Chinese person's diet if they wanted to--fast food just tastes better. Or they could just eat less crappy food--5 Big Macs instead of 10.

Lolol, are you seriously claiming that the average poor person can afford all kinds of fast food every single day?

Let's work it out.

The poverty line for a single-person household is $11,170.

That's approximately $31 per day.

$217 per week.

http://aspe.hhs.gov...

The lowest average monthly rent is $620 per month.

http://www.wtnrradio.com...

That leaves those at the edge of the poverty line $134.54 per month for everything else.

Assuming that everything else excludes everything but food (which is rather unlikely), that leaves them approximately $4/day.

The average Big Mac costs $3.57.

So, if a poor person in the United States paid for only Big Macs and rent and nothing else in the world, they could only afford one per day, without fries or a drink.

You're trippin.

Oh! And before you go and say something retarded, like that would still make someone fat, there's only 700 calories in a Big Mac:

http://caloriecount.about.com...

However, one normally needs at leat 1500 calories per day to even survive.

Looks like you have some rethinking to do. ;)

Because they make better decisions. If it were just income, then Chinese people would live shorter lifespans than than Americans. But they don't, because they live healthier lives.

That is ridiculously preposterous.

I remember you mention smoking. Well, I happen to know that the average Chinese person smokes markedly more than the average American. So, let me go on ahead and look that up for you...

Lmfao, apparently, there are 300 million smokers in China, which is 75% of the entire U.S. population.

http://library.thinkquest.org...

Yeah, it's their economic and political system--that's why their lifespans are so high. Fast food, alcohol, and cigarettes have very little effect on health compared to dictatorship vs. democracy (and it seems a dictator poltical system leads to longer lifespans--who knew?)

Lulz.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:05:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 9:40:19 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/2/2012 9:07:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Even homeless Americans don't starve to death.

??!!

That is a (false) speculative assumption.
How many homeless people have starved to death in the United States in the past decade?
In any case, I didn't even mention poor people. I mentioned the middle class, who typically work harder than the rich.

Lol, so, what do you consider "rich?" $50k/year?
That's approximately the top 1% of workers in the world.

Uhh, economies vary, resulting in exchange rates. In other words, the dollar bill isn't worth the same everywhere.
Yeah, that's adjusting for exchange rates. When you look at statistics saying 'X amount of people live on less than a dollar a day', it means on less than what a dollar a day is worth here.
The point isn't that there are poor people. The point is that people are not receiving the money they're generating, as those who receive it first keep most of it for themselves.
I don't see why I should care about those people, rather than people who are actually suffering.

You do realize that the upper 1% are all millionaires. In fact, the upper 1% refers to those who make at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Nope. http://money.cnn.com...

Lol, I think CNN needs to make up it's mind ;)

"By comparison, 4.3% of households in the United States had wealth of over $1 million, which ranks it 7th in the world. "

http://money.cnn.com...

Lololol
"In fact, the upper 1% refers to those who make at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year."
"per year"
lol@you loling at me because you don't understand the difference between income and wealth.
Their lives are extremely similar, compared to the difference between the 1st world "middle class" and the global middle class.

Substantiation?
Look at how the average American lives, then at how the average person in the world lives--it's obvious.
What is this "global middle class" you're referring to? Please tell me you're not including Third World countries in your figures. :|
Yes, I am including the 3rd world when talking about the 'globe.'
Like malaria?

That doesn't exist in this country, wtf.
That was my point.
Or tuberculosis?
Very rarely--3.4 cases per 100,000 people in 2011. It's not a major problem, as it is in much of the world.
Yes.

Or diarrhea?

Diarrhea is not a diease, wtf.
And yet, millions of people all over the world die of it every year.
Oh wait--you must mean 'easily preventable' as in 'easily prevented by not being a retard' http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, I can see how malignant neoplasms and influenza have everything to do with mental retardation.
Lung cancer is one of the main 'malignant neoplasms.' And deaths from influenza are tiny compared to the amount of deaths from heart disease and lung cancer.
The diseases Americans die of, like heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes, often are preventable--by eating healthier and not smoking.

Or, not being forced to exist among and ingest toxic substances... Ohhhh, wait, are you suggesting that it's just as easy for a poor person to eat healthily as it is for a rich person? That's a funny idea, how did you come to that conclusion? I can write you a book on why that alone is completley , 100% wrong.

The only garbage they can buy is cigarettes and alcohol?

I'm sorry, are you really averring that only poor and middle class people smoke and drink?

Lmfao, are you really saying that?
No retard. I'm saying poor and middle class people are more likely to abuse alcohol and cigarettes than rich people.
As for food--they could afford to buy the average Chinese person's diet if they wanted to--fast food just tastes better. Or they could just eat less crappy food--5 Big Macs instead of 10.

Lolol, are you seriously claiming that the average poor person can afford all kinds of fast food every single day?

Let's work it out.

The poverty line for a single-person household is $11,170.

That's approximately $31 per day.

$217 per week.

http://aspe.hhs.gov...

The lowest average monthly rent is $620 per month.

http://www.wtnrradio.com...

That leaves those at the edge of the poverty line $134.54 per month for everything else.

Assuming that everything else excludes everything but food (which is rather unlikely), that leaves them approximately $4/day.

The average Big Mac costs $3.57.

So, if a poor person in the United States paid for only Big Macs and rent and nothing else in the world, they could only afford one per day, without fries or a drink.

You're trippin.

Oh! And before you go and say something retarded, like that would still make someone fat, there's only 700 calories in a Big Mac:

http://caloriecount.about.com...

However, one normally needs at leat 1500 calories per day to even survive.

Looks like you have some rethinking to do. ;)
No one gets obese off 700 calories a day. And yet, poor people have higher rates of obesity than rich people. Looks like you have some rethinking to do.
Because they make better decisions. If it were just income, then Chinese people would live shorter lifespans than than Americans. But they don't, because they live healthier lives.

That is ridiculously preposterous.

I remember you mention smoking. Well, I happen to know that the average Chinese person smokes markedly more than the average American. So, let me go on ahead and look that up for you...

Lmfao, apparently, there are 300 million smokers in China, which is 75% of the entire U.S. population.

http://library.thinkquest.org...
75% of the U.S. population? Nice use of statistics--comparing the total numbers, rather than percentage, even though China has 4x as many people as the U.S. If you look at percentages, China has a somewhat higher than the percentage of Americans who smoke--and not if you consider past smokers who are now sick, since our smoking rate was higher in the past and there's was lower.

But the average poor American smokes more than that. http://media.gallup.com...

Yeah, it's their economic and political system--that's why their lifespans are so high. Fast food, alcohol, and cigarettes have very little effect on health compared to dictatorship vs. democracy (and it seems a dictator poltical system leads to longer lifespans--who knew?)

Lulz.

What, exactly, is your explanation for their long lifespans then?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:45:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The federal gov't as we all know massively subsidizes fast food and corn syrup. Basically, it is incentivizing the unhealthy foods that make many Americans fat and sick.

About 14.5% of Americans suffer from food insecurity, not knowing where their next meal will come from. [1]

Moving the subsidies towards healthy food and discouraging unhealthy food would go a long way. At least end the subsidies so that we incentivize healthy food instead of the other crap such as processed meat, etc.

The top 1% of the top 1% (top 0.01%) averages at about $20 million in income per household. About Mitt Romney's income (just he has $4 million more annually).

Incentiving healthy food and making sure that producers don't add harmful poisions and pesticides to food (unhealthy food), and possibly using tax measures to discourage obesity, would go a long way in improving the public health of America.

[1] Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson, "Household Food Security in the United States in 2010," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Resarch Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:51:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 7:48:31 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 6:13:06 PM, DanT wrote:


They better be using figures adjusted for inflation. If $20,000 is middle class in 1980, and $6,000 or less is poor, and if a guy who was poor then finally makes $20,000 in 2010, I cannot consider him rich. Does this figure take this into account?

Yes.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:53:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:45:18 AM, Contra wrote:
The federal gov't as we all know massively subsidizes fast food and corn syrup. Basically, it is incentivizing the unhealthy foods that make many Americans fat and sick.

About 14.5% of Americans suffer from food insecurity, not knowing where their next meal will come from. [1]

Moving the subsidies towards healthy food and discouraging unhealthy food would go a long way. At least end the subsidies so that we incentivize healthy food instead of the other crap such as processed meat, etc.

The top 1% of the top 1% (top 0.01%) averages at about $20 million in income per household. About Mitt Romney's income (just he has $4 million more annually).

Incentiving healthy food and making sure that producers don't add harmful poisions and pesticides to food (unhealthy food), and possibly using tax measures to discourage obesity, would go a long way in improving the public health of America.



[1] Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson, "Household Food Security in the United States in 2010," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Resarch Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov...

Subsidies have some impact, but not as much as people think. High-fructose corn syrup is probably somewhat less healthy than natural sugar, but not that much. The problem is simply that unhealthy food tastes better--which would remain regardless of subsidies.

In addition, I find claims of 'food insecurity' questionable. Assuming that 14.5% is in the bottom 5th of income, how does that quintile have such high rates of obesity? http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...

Poor Americans aren't food insecure in the way that poor Africans are--they may not know where there next meal is coming from, but they can be pretty sure they're gonna eat, and eat more than enough.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:54:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 8:40:23 AM, Ren wrote:
You do realize that the upper 1% are all millionaires. In fact, the upper 1% refers to those who make at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

This is exactly why I don't support people, in general, who use the term '1%' as a bad thing. They don't even know what they are talking about.

Top 1% starts at $343,000. Not quite hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:59:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 9:40:19 AM, Ren wrote:
You do realize that the upper 1% are all millionaires. In fact, the upper 1% refers to those who make at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Nope. http://money.cnn.com...

Lol, I think CNN needs to make up it's mind ;)

"By comparison, 4.3% of households in the United States had wealth of over $1 million, which ranks it 7th in the world. "

http://money.cnn.com...

Lololol

Herp Derp, try to save your argument.

You said the top 1% make hundreds of millions per year. YOu are in the top 1% if you make $343,000. Therefore, you can be in the top 1% without making a million dollars a year, AND without having a million dollars of wealth.

You're trying to use wealth as an argument for income? Herp Derp just say whatever you can and hope people don't notice!
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:01:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:45:18 AM, Contra wrote:

Contra, do you understand why income mobility is a poor statistic to compare countries with now?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:27:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:05:05 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
How many homeless people have starved to death in the United States in the past decade?

And just how would someone obtain such statistics? Homeless people essentially live "off the grid."

Yeah, that's adjusting for exchange rates.

Lolproveit.

When you look at statistics saying 'X amount of people live on less than a dollar a day', it means on less than what a dollar a day is worth here.

Yeah, that doesn't sound fallacious to you?

Well, it certainly is. It is impossible for an American to live on less than a dollar a day.
I don't see why I should care about those people, rather than people who are actually suffering.

Clearly, you don't care about them, either. You assume that the impoverished in this country live in bungalows and eat all day. Sounds to me as though you don't give a shiit about anyone. Why don't you go volunteer at a homeless shelter for a week and see how you feel about these things?

"In fact, the upper 1% refers to those who make at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year."
"per year"
lol@you loling at me because you don't understand the difference between income and wealth.

I was loling at you, because you claim that upper 1% refers to those who make something like $400k/year, when it's unlikely that someone who makes such figures would ever breach $1 million dollars, and there are 5.1 million reported millionaires, 425 reported billionaires, and trillionaires (which do exist) leave themselves unreported. There are 400 million people total in the United States (give or take), so the heart of my argument (do you do realize that the upper 1% are all millionaires), which was actually in response to your claim that all Americans are rich (which is far more retarded than anything else said in this thread), was actually completely correct, as there is greater than 1% of this nation that has over a million dollars, the exaggeration (that it actually refers to people who make at least 100s of millions per year) notwithstanding, although I was actually making a point with that (although there are likely very few 1 percenters that make significantly less, the majority of 1 percenters are those who make an obscene amount of money).

So, yeah, you can go ahead and pretend as though I've been talking about income this entire time, or as though income and wealth are mutually exclusive (which is quite laughable in its own right -- might want to take a look at this for that one http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...), the point of my argument still remains.

(continued)