Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
That settles that now, doesn’t it.
Comments
-
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.1to392831weretaken said:
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).greenblood said:The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale. -
I don't do income inequality myself, so we're in general agreement there. What do I care how much 7 or 8 guys have as long as I have a chance to do the same and if I miss still live quite well? What business is it of mine how wealthy Bezos is? As long it's not illegal, it's none-ya-business.greenblood said:
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.1to392831weretaken said:
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).greenblood said:The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
Where we part company is the low-skilled workers "problem". Reform the welfare state so as not to provide any government benefits (other than the most basic human needs) to the newly-arrived. Those people are finding work by and large and if they're willing to do it for less that's the American way. We spend a lot of time arguing against minimum wage laws and $22 / hr. at McDonald's, and not nearly enough time examining what labor protectionist policies would do the the American economy ... short- and long-term.
IDK when this changed, but conservatism used to mean freedom of capital deployment as well. So are we for or against low-skill workers making $22 / hr.? We seem to go back and forth on this depending on whether the worker is an immigrant or a citizen. -
Yup. Moscow is expensive as shit too.creepycoug said:
Would be chintresting to take your million and go to Russia. Some beautiful women over there. Of course, you'd need to take all your weaponry, and then some, and gangster the fuck up. Cuz ain't no way some engine from the US is going to show up flingin' dolla bills in the air and claiming any turf without a fight.Swaye said:I could be rich in India.
Friend of mine travels there for bidness, and another is now the managing partner of a global law firm with an office in Moscow (he's native Russian but educated here). Apparently the gangster oligarchy class is a very real thing there.
Funny story from a while back now...met up with a South African guy I went to grad school with at a bar in Amsterdam after not seeing him for about 5 years...sharp guy but a bit naive. He was managing a European business in Russia and telling me about living there...started describing his girlfriend and his introduction to her family. Described some crazy expensive gifts her brothers had gotten him...I asked him what the family did. He said with a straight face they imported cars and seriously believed it.
Next twenty minutes was pure comedy as I kept asking questions and I could tell that it started sinking in to him that the girl’s family was Russian mob...not a spot I’d want to be in. -
Lolz. The Russian equivalent of Olive Oil Importer. Importing seems to be a common cover for the Mob. That feeling you get when you realize the one moment of weakness will now be the pickle of your life. Holy shit; wonder what happened to him.HoustonHusky said:
Yup. Moscow is expensive as shit too.creepycoug said:
Would be chintresting to take your million and go to Russia. Some beautiful women over there. Of course, you'd need to take all your weaponry, and then some, and gangster the fuck up. Cuz ain't no way some engine from the US is going to show up flingin' dolla bills in the air and claiming any turf without a fight.Swaye said:I could be rich in India.
Friend of mine travels there for bidness, and another is now the managing partner of a global law firm with an office in Moscow (he's native Russian but educated here). Apparently the gangster oligarchy class is a very real thing there.
Funny story from a while back now...met up with a South African guy I went to grad school with at a bar in Amsterdam after not seeing him for about 5 years...sharp guy but a bit naive. He was managing a European business in Russia and telling me about living there...started describing his girlfriend and his introduction to her family. Described some crazy expensive gifts her brothers had gotten him...I asked him what the family did. He said with a straight face they imported cars and seriously believed it.
Next twenty minutes was pure comedy as I kept asking questions and I could tell that it started sinking in to him that the girl’s family was Russian mob...not a spot I’d want to be in. -
I thought Stalin liked the Korean gals? No?PurpleThrobber said: -
whynotboth.gif?creepycoug said:
I thought Stalin liked the Korean gals? No?PurpleThrobber said: -
I do for surecreepycoug said:
I thought Stalin liked the Korean gals? No?PurpleThrobber said: -
On minimum wage, I think the federal government needs to stay out of it. The minimum survival wage in Southern California is much more than Jackson Mississippi. Let the states determine their own minimum wage, based on the economic conditions of their state. We live in a much more economically diverse country, and our pay scale should be reflective of that.creepycoug said:
I don't do income inequality myself, so we're in general agreement there. What do I care how much 7 or 8 guys have as long as I have a chance to do the same and if I miss still live quite well? What business is it of mine how wealthy Bezos is? As long it's not illegal, it's none-ya-business.greenblood said:
Income inequality is an idiotic measure. Compare our bottom 20% with the bottom 20% in all other countries, and you'll see our 20% have it better. In about 20-25 years when that won't be the case, you idiots will continue to blame the rich, but gladly ignore the millions of low skilled workers storming the southern border.1to392831weretaken said:
What? No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. It just proves that--assuming whatever the hell Knight Frank is is reporting accurately--the U.S. provides the third best financial life for its top percent. The U.S. is decent when it comes to percent below the poverty line, but not even close to the best. It's downright terrible when it comes to income inequality (the denominator in the above graphic having much to do with that), with a GINI coefficient ranked lower than UW men's basketball by both the World Bank and CIA (ranked one spot ahead of the Ivory Coast in 2016, so we got that going for us, which is nice).greenblood said:The fact that you need $4.4m to be the top 1% proves that the US still provides the best financial life for everybody. People that bitch and moan about the US being unfair, if told they could leave to anywhere else for free, most would stay here.
It's good to be rich in the USA. Same as it's ever been.
You can't continue to grow the bottom, and expect the top to support it. That has never worked, and it will eventually drive money out of the US, and causing the government to print even more of it. Then comes hyper-inflation, and you become Venezuela only on a much larger scale.
Where we part company is the low-skilled workers "problem". Reform the welfare state so as not to provide any government benefits (other than the most basic human needs) to the newly-arrived. Those people are finding work by and large and if they're willing to do it for less that's the American way. We spend a lot of time arguing against minimum wage laws and $22 / hr. at McDonald's, and not nearly enough time examining what labor protectionist policies would do the the American economy ... short- and long-term.
IDK when this changed, but conservatism used to mean freedom of capital deployment as well. So are we for or against low-skill workers making $22 / hr.? We seem to go back and forth on this depending on whether the worker is an immigrant or a citizen.
I should clarify on the low skilled workers. We already have a large pool of low skilled workers in this country, and the percentage compared to high skilled workers continues to expand. How does bringing in millions of additional low skilled workers every year help solve this problem? All this does is put greater emphasis on the need of a welfare state. When this happens, the rich move their money (because they can) and the money starts to dry up. I think as a country, we need to do a better job offering more trade schools and work programs for the people already here, and fix this first, then we can look at opening up the gates, once we have a system in place. -
The problem was redefining skilled work like construction to low skilled and illegal which ruins wages for citizens of all colors to make more than the minimum doing good work
-
You know, there was a time when I just had zero attraction to the Asians (ISNFR) and I was all about the norther Euros, which is how I ended up with Mrs. Creepycoug. But the last, say, five years or so I've completely gone 180 on that. Go figure.Pitchfork51 said:
I do for surecreepycoug said:
I thought Stalin liked the Korean gals? No?PurpleThrobber said:
