Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

My gap is wider than your gap.Follow

#1 Oct 30 2013 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Distribution of income inequality across the country (see pic on page 2, and give it a minute to load).

Article with list of most and least equal places to live (list at bottom).

Interesting observations:

1) There's a lot of equality in big empty places like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska...

2) Living in the south looks like it kinda sucks.

3)
Quote:
Many of the counties with low Gini indexes were either very low in population or a fast-growing county containing commuter towns within a large metropolitan area. Loving County, TX, is an example of the former kind of county; it had both the lowest population in the country as well as the lowest Gini index estimate. Kendall County, IL, near Chicago, is an example of the latter kind; it had the highest population growth rate between the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, more than doubling over that decade


4)
Quote:
Since 1967, U.S. household income inequality has grown 18 percent. Nearly half of that growth occurred during the 1980s (Regan! Smiley: mad... Smiley: rolleyes). More recently, the growth in income inequality has tapered off


So if we want equality we should move to those barren areas where there's nothing much of value, and no real potential to improve one's lot in life. That how it works, right?

That was less inspiring than I had hoped. Smiley: glare

How unequal are you?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2 Oct 30 2013 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,373 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
How unequal are you?
If I'm reading that right, and I might not be, dark blue is bad?

Then, bad.
#3 Oct 30 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Yup dark blue is bad; which seems to be most metropolitan areas really. White is good. Government is racist... Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Oct 30th 2013 9:12am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Oct 30 2013 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
#18: Clarke County, Georgia (53.95)

Part of this is because of the university students, but it's also the employees of the university and the music scene. We have a combination of very highly paid professors and university administrators, and a giant medical community with two major hospitals and a hundred smaller clinics (and lots of specialists.) Then we have all the people who staff those places, most making minimum wage or barely above.

As for the music scene, we have a lot of starving artist types here. A lot. All hoping to be the next REM or Widespread Panic. In the meantime, they have minimum wage day jobs and get paid a couple hundred bucks to play at venues on the weekends for "exposure."

Oddly enough, although we both work in the next county over, my husband and I are now adding to the inequality in the county with our combined six figure income. We're part of the problem because we chose to live in Clarke, even though we work in Oconee. (We pay higher taxes in Clarke, but our house was dirt cheap.)

Edited, Oct 31st 2013 3:33pm by Catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#5 Oct 30 2013 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
Expected a thread about thigh gap. Was disappointed.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#6 Oct 30 2013 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
It's hard to tell for sure cuz my head was sideways looking at the map, but I think my county is average in inequality, which is also fairly representative of the inequality of the state.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#7 Oct 30 2013 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Expected a thread about thigh gap. Was disappointed.
We used to call that bow-legged.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#8 Oct 30 2013 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Will County, IL is "white" which surprises me a little. There's a fair amount of lower class minorities in the country as well as a fair amount of well-off folks who bought property in the exurbs to build big homes on. Maybe the number of folks in the middle make that a wash.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Oct 30 2013 at 11:13 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Ours is not great. Likely because of one of the poorest cities in the state being in the county. Fucking poors, ruining it for us again. Why don't they have their own country and stop clogging up mine with their poor people ways.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Oct 30 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Our county in Florida is about as dark blue as you can get. No real surprise there, I suppose. It is Florida.

Our home county in Tennessee is just as dark blue.

Our county in Hawaii is a lighter shade of blue.

We're doing it wrong. :(
#11 Oct 30 2013 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Ours is not great. Likely because of one of the poorest cities in the state being in the county. @#%^ing poors, ruining it for us again. Why don't they have their own country and stop clogging up mine with their poor people ways.
Civil War was the dumbest idea ever. Just look at all of those blue squares that would be someone else's problem right now.

BrownDuck wrote:
Expected a thread about thigh gap. Was disappointed.
Try again in a couple of hours, I'm sure you'll get more traction for a derail. I'll be watching eagerly.

Smiley: popcorn

Edited, Oct 30th 2013 10:31am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Oct 30 2013 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Ours is not great. Likely because of one of the poorest cities in the state being in the county. Fucking poors, ruining it for us again. Why don't they have their own country and stop clogging up mine with their poor people ways.


That's a very Somalian way to think. Or Belgian, or - wait **** it's everyone.
-
The solution to economic inequality is pretty simple, just kill the richest people in society, starting from the top. Eventually, the wealth will trickle down - now, while it's true that inheritance often concentrates wealth, any time this happens the new rich guy shoots straight to the top of the list; I take it on faith that this will, eventually, work. I'm not saying we should do it, but we should. I'm just not going to say that we should, even though I already did.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#13 Oct 30 2013 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Ours is not great. Likely because of one of the poorest cities in the state being in the county. Fucking poors, ruining it for us again. Why don't they have their own country and stop clogging up mine with their poor people ways.


That's a very Somalian way to think. Or Belgian, or - wait sh*t it's everyone.
-
The solution to economic inequality is pretty simple, just kill the richest people in society, starting from the top. Eventually, the wealth will trickle down - now, while it's true that inheritance often concentrates wealth, any time this happens the new rich guy shoots straight to the top of the list; I take it on faith that this will, eventually, work. I'm not saying we should do it, but we should. I'm just not going to say that we should, even though I already did.

Wouldn't it work just as well to kill off all the poor people?

I'm not saying we should, just that the end and means thing really is a bunch of hogwash - isn't it?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#14 Oct 30 2013 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Wouldn't it work just as well to kill off all the poor people?

Costs more in bullets.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Oct 30 2013 at 1:26 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Wouldn't it work just as well to kill off all the poor people?

Costs more in bullets.


So you're saying it would boost the economy?
#16 Oct 30 2013 at 1:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hey, maybe. We could find the exact line where the bullets meet the trickle-down effect.

"Mrs. Tabbit, I'm afraid you're under the distribution lin---"
"WAIT! Mrs Tabbit just received her $25 bonus check from the cafe she works in next to Acme Bullets Ltd!"
"Looks like you're safe... this time."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Oct 30 2013 at 6:11 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Why use bullets? Just burn the building down, then set up some jobs to rebuild it. Especially if it's your own construction company.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Oct 31 2013 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Wouldn't it work just as well to kill off all the poor people?

No, because their labor is what makes wealth for the rich. Killing off the rich would mean their labor would make wealth for themselves.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Oct 31 2013 at 12:16 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Looks like I'm light green. That's pretty good, right?

I agree that graphics like these further support arguments to retroactively allow secession.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#20 Oct 31 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
someproteinguy wrote:

So if we want equality we should move to those barren areas where there's nothing much of value, and no real potential to improve one's lot in life. That how it works, right?


That is exactly right. And should be a hint that we're placing value on the wrong thing (income inequality is not actually bad).

Smasharoo wrote:
Wouldn't it work just as well to kill off all the poor people?

No, because their labor is what makes wealth for the rich. Killing off the rich would mean their labor would make wealth for themselves.


Oh you socialist you!

Edited, Oct 31st 2013 2:39pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Oct 31 2013 at 11:57 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:

So if we want equality we should move to those barren areas where there's nothing much of value, and no real potential to improve one's lot in life. That how it works, right?


That is exactly right. And should be a hint that we're placing value on the wrong thing (income inequality is not actually bad).



Right, Because a healthy economy always has income issues in its largest areas of economic influence!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#22 Nov 01 2013 at 6:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:

That is exactly right. And should be a hint that we're placing value on the wrong thing (income inequality is not actually bad).

Of course it's not inherently bad, it's inevitable. The dose makes the poison eh.

Value is placed on income because income represents wealth. When 5% of the people have over 70% of the wealth, it's too much inequality. The economy is unhealthy.

That part is pretty easy to understand.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#23 Nov 01 2013 at 6:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So if we want equality we should move to those barren areas where there's nothing much of value, and no real potential to improve one's lot in life. That how it works, right?
That is exactly right. And should be a hint that we're placing value on the wrong thing (income inequality is not actually bad).

One doesn't necessarily follow the other. Two people sitting on an ice floe might have the same income (zero) but it shows nothing about the positive or negative effects of inequality.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Nov 01 2013 at 2:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:

That is exactly right. And should be a hint that we're placing value on the wrong thing (income inequality is not actually bad).

Of course it's not inherently bad, it's inevitable. The dose makes the poison eh.


I disagree that we're talking about poison though. That suggests something which is always "bad" if present in sufficient quantity.

Quote:
Value is placed on income because income represents wealth. When 5% of the people have over 70% of the wealth, it's too much inequality. The economy is unhealthy.


Is it though? Is that too much inequality? How are you measuring it? You say the "economy is unhealthy", but is there some objective, non circular (meaning something other than just the income inequality) method you're using to decide that the economy is both unhealthy *and* the cause is too much income inequality?

This is the part I disagree with? People constantly say "we've got too much income inequality", and assume that this is "bad", but their arguments tend to fall apart when they're asked to give specifics about how this is bad for "the economy". Obviously, it may be relatively bad for the person who at the moment has less income than someone else, but is this actually bad for the economy? Is it bad for "the people" within the economy, as a whole, over time?

If you think it is, what evidence do you have to support that assumption?

Quote:
That part is pretty easy to understand.


I think it's terrifically easy to say. It's a **** of a lot harder to prove though. Which is why it's so frustrating to just hear people say it over and over, despite fumbling over a supportive argument when asked to provide one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Nov 01 2013 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, it may be relatively bad for the person who at the moment has less income than someone else, but is this actually bad for the economy? Is it bad for "the people" within the economy, as a whole, over time?
In a country where political spending is largely unrestricted it's easy for a minority to have an undue sway on policy, to the detriment of the majority.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#26 Nov 01 2013 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:

That is exactly right. And should be a hint that we're placing value on the wrong thing (income inequality is not actually bad).

Of course it's not inherently bad, it's inevitable. The dose makes the poison eh.


I disagree that we're talking about poison though. That suggests something which is always "bad" if present in sufficient quantity.
Yes. Everything can always have negative effects if it's quantity is out of balance - too much or too little.

Are you willing to say that there is no point at which the gap between wealth, independently of the income scale will be 'ok' or not produce any adverse effects?

Quote:
Is it though? Is that too much inequality? How are you measuring it? You say the "economy is unhealthy", but is there some objective, non circular (meaning something other than just the income inequality) method you're using to decide that the economy is both unhealthy *and* the cause is too much income inequality?
You can measure it in abundant ways. Production, health, even simple population data. But clearly when the accumulation of money becomes a tool for power rather than simply a means of currency it needs to be checked.





Edited, Nov 1st 2013 11:35pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (70)