Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

My gap is wider than your gap.Follow

#1 Oct 30 2013 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,427 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
******
27,066 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
How unequal are you?
If I'm reading that right, and I might not be, dark blue is bad?

Then, bad.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#3 Oct 30 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,427 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
Avatar
*****
19,530 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. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#5 Oct 30 2013 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
******
21,715 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
*****
14,829 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.


____________________________
LOOK here.
#7 Oct 30 2013 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Expected a thread about thigh gap. Was disappointed.
We used to call that bow-legged.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#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
******
28,585 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 whore. 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? Gay. 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
******
30,625 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. :(
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#11 Oct 30 2013 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,427 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
*****
13,909 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 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.
____________________________
“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
*****
14,829 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?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#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
******
30,625 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?
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#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
******
41,332 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
******
28,585 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 whore. 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? Gay. 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
*****
19,626 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
******
30,889 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
****
7,427 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 BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#22 Nov 01 2013 at 6:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 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.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#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
******
30,889 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 hell 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
Avatar
*****
10,427 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
*****
14,829 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
____________________________
LOOK here.
#27 Nov 01 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,889 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.


Sure. But we don't call everything "poison".

Quote:
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?


"Any" adverse effects? That's also an unfair requirement (too broad by far). Overall effect on the economy and on economic outcomes for the population as a whole? I will absolutely state that not only is there no point at which the income gap alone can be said to produce those negative effects, but will also argue that statistically the correlation is reversed and that the economic outcomes for the population as a whole tend to be directly proportional to the income gap itself. In other words, a larger income gap tends to reflect a more healthy economy, greater economic opportunity for a larger percentage of the population, higher standard of living overall, faster technological growth, and a host of things that I would not only not label as "poison", but would argue are incredibly positive things we should be striving for.


As I have argued many times on this forum, what we're really measuring with that gap is the slope of our economic line. Graph earnings by percentile in order from lowest to highest, and the slope of the line is steepest where the "gap" is greatest. But that slope also represents upward mobility. It literally measures how much you gain when you move forward within the economy. And since the slope is scaled based on percentiles of the population it accounts for difficulty to make that move. Put another way, the amount of positive economic gain for every single individual within an economy is increased if the slope of that line is steeper.

That's a good thing, all the way around. There are other things we can argue are "good" or "bad", but saying that the gap makes an economy "bad" is not just wrong, it's completely backwards. The larger the gap the better off the people in the economy are. I know that sounds wrong because you've been taught to view that gap negatively your entire life, but if you actually step back and think about what that gap really measures and how it affects you and everyone else in the economy, you'll realize that what you've assumed about it is wrong. The gap measures ease of economic advancement within a given economy. That's it. Everything else remaining the same, a larger gap is good, not bad.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 2:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Nov 01 2013 at 3:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,889 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.


But that's a completely different criteria. You said that too much income inequality was bad for the economy. You said nothing about how the money was used. I'm specifically questioning the assumption that when income inequality is high, that this is bad.

If you can't argue that this is true, then you can't simply point at a high income inequality and declare that this is "bad". Now if you want to use some other criteria, then that's a whole different argument. My issue is with people simply pointing to a high income inequality and saying we need to fix that.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 2:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Nov 01 2013 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,427 posts
So, in that case, how does one keep someone with a large amount of money from misusing it?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#30 Nov 01 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.


But that's a completely different criteria. You said that too much income inequality was bad for the economy. You said nothing about how the money was used. I'm specifically questioning the assumption that when income inequality is high, that this is bad.

If you can't argue that this is true, then you can't simply point at a high income inequality and declare that this is "bad". Now if you want to use some other criteria, then that's a whole different argument. My issue is with people simply pointing to a high income inequality and saying we need to fix that.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 2:46pm by gbaji

You skipped my question, Mister.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#31 Nov 01 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,889 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.


But that's a completely different criteria. You said that too much income inequality was bad for the economy. You said nothing about how the money was used. I'm specifically questioning the assumption that when income inequality is high, that this is bad.

If you can't argue that this is true, then you can't simply point at a high income inequality and declare that this is "bad". Now if you want to use some other criteria, then that's a whole different argument. My issue is with people simply pointing to a high income inequality and saying we need to fix that.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 2:46pm by gbaji

You skipped my question, Mister.


You didn't ask a question in the post you quoted.

You did ask a question in the other one, to which I provided a several paragraph long answer.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Nov 01 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,889 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
So, in that case, how does one keep someone with a large amount of money from misusing it?


Start with a definition of "misusing" that is not synonymous with "having". Then punish those who actually misuse their money/power/whatever. Right now, the criteria seems to be "punish anyone with money". Which is stupid as hell unless you are actually assuming that merely having it is "bad". Which gets us right back to me asking people why they think this is true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Nov 01 2013 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,427 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So, in that case, how does one keep someone with a large amount of money from misusing it?


Start with a definition of "misusing" that is not synonymous with "having". Then punish those who actually misuse their money/power/whatever. Right now, the criteria seems to be "punish anyone with money". Which is stupid as hell unless you are actually assuming that merely having it is "bad". Which gets us right back to me asking people why they think this is true.
I agree, it's stupid to punish people merely because they're successful, and what is "bad" is really important to have defined. The danger is with my previous post, that a minority can have undue sway on the political process. If a minority gets too much influence in defining what it means to misuse your power it's difficult if not impossible to enforce the will of the majority.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#34 Nov 02 2013 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So, in that case, how does one keep someone with a large amount of money from misusing it?


Start with a definition of "misusing" that is not synonymous with "having". Then punish those who actually misuse their money/power/whatever. Right now, the criteria seems to be "punish anyone with money". Which is stupid as hell unless you are actually assuming that merely having it is "bad". Which gets us right back to me asking people why they think this is true.
I agree, it's stupid to punish people merely because they're successful, and what is "bad" is really important to have defined. The danger is with my previous post, that a minority can have undue sway on the political process. If a minority gets too much influence in defining what it means to misuse your power it's difficult if not impossible to enforce the will of the majority.


Like shutting down the government because you want to stamp your feet over something that was already passed into law?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#35 Nov 03 2013 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts

I don't think breaking down inequality by counties is a particularly useful analysis. County governments don't have the political power to really affect income or capital gains taxes. There's no barrier to crossing them for employment. It's not like each county is its own congressional district or school district.

In fact, even though inequality its bad on its face, it's good to have it in a given geographical area because that means that people of different incomes are living in proximity, rather than being segregated. That's good for a tax base (especially if the rich and poor live in the same city and share school funding) as well as being generally good for community & social health.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#36 Nov 03 2013 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
trickybeck wrote:
In fact, even though inequality its bad on its face, it's good to have it in a given geographical area because that means that people of different incomes are living in proximity, rather than being segregated.

Oh they're still fairly segregated. 6 miles separates one of the top ranked open enrollment schools in Texas from one of the bottom rank.
#37 Nov 03 2013 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts
Allegory wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
In fact, even though inequality its bad on its face, it's good to have it in a given geographical area because that means that people of different incomes are living in proximity, rather than being segregated.

Oh they're still fairly segregated. 6 miles separates one of the top ranked open enrollment schools in Texas from one of the bottom rank.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Chicago area has the same problem. Just proposing a sort of theoretical ideal.

I was more trying to point out that county divisions don't matter that much. And that the opposite situation of having all millionaires in one county and all impoverished in another would result in perfect income equality, yet would be an even worse situation (or at least no better).


Edited, Nov 3rd 2013 4:37pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#38 Nov 03 2013 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
There was a time when the very rich and the very poor lived side by side. But noooo, we just had to end slavery.
#39 Nov 03 2013 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,859 posts
Allegory wrote:
There was a time when the very rich and the very poor lived side by side. But noooo, we just had to end slavery.


If they didn't white people would have no culture from which to steal.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#40 Nov 04 2013 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Allegory wrote:
There was a time when the very rich and the very poor lived side by side. But noooo, we just had to end slavery.


If they didn't white people would have no culture from which to steal all turned into light brown people.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#41 Nov 04 2013 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,530 posts
What we have instead is like a form of indentured servitude, in which the minimum wage earners make up a subclass to support the richbies that live in the same town.

I kind of felt that way this weekend when I paid someone else $60 to wax my car. Smiley: frown How many nice cars has that guy at the car wash waxed? Versus how many crummy cars? Okay my 1997 Honda Accord isn't exactly a nice car, it's just been fairly well kept up.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#42 Nov 04 2013 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
I paid someone else $60...1997 Honda Accord

Wait, what? What? 1/20th of yours car value to clean it? How stupid are you? "I just paid someone $50,000 to wash my house, Jim! Splendid decision, Wendy!" What are you doing? Stop pissing money away, you savage.

____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#43 Nov 04 2013 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,530 posts
It had a new coat of paint on it. It had to be waxed.

Someone had a gorgeous lemon yellow Corvette getting done just after me.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#44 Nov 04 2013 at 2:08 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
It had a new coat of paint on it.

Well that makes more sense. If I'd just paid to have a $1500 car painted, I'd want to make sure to spring for the "good" cleaning service. Have you considered just having it bronzed?
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Nov 04 2013 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,530 posts
If it makes it to year 30, it might have earned it at that point. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#46 Nov 04 2013 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
DP

Edited, Nov 4th 2013 3:56pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#47 Nov 04 2013 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I paid someone else $60...1997 Honda Accord

Wait, what? What? 1/20th of yours car value to clean it? How stupid are you? "I just paid someone $50,000 to wash my house, Jim! Splendid decision, Wendy!" What are you doing? Stop pissing money away, you savage.



Ya and one day that Honda, could be a Lexus!.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#48 Nov 04 2013 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,530 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I paid someone else $60...1997 Honda Accord

Wait, what? What? 1/20th of yours car value to clean it? How stupid are you? "I just paid someone $50,000 to wash my house, Jim! Splendid decision, Wendy!" What are you doing? Stop pissing money away, you savage.


Ya and one day that Honda, could be a Lexus!.


If my used Honda miraculously transmutes into a used Lexus, that sh*t deserves to be plated in gold and worshiped by someone.

Edited, Nov 4th 2013 5:17pm by Catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#49 Nov 04 2013 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Catwho wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I paid someone else $60...1997 Honda Accord

Wait, what? What? 1/20th of yours car value to clean it? How stupid are you? "I just paid someone $50,000 to wash my house, Jim! Splendid decision, Wendy!" What are you doing? Stop pissing money away, you savage.


Ya and one day that Honda, could be a Lexus!.


If my used Honda miraculously transmutes into a used Lexus, that sh*t deserves to be plated in gold and worshiped by someone.

Edited, Nov 4th 2013 5:17pm by Catwho


If you don't gold plate it You could afford a new lexus!

Edited, Nov 4th 2013 5:25pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#50 Nov 04 2013 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,626 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Catwho wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I paid someone else $60...1997 Honda Accord
Wait, what? What? 1/20th of yours car value to clean it? How stupid are you? "I just paid someone $50,000 to wash my house, Jim! Splendid decision, Wendy!" What are you doing? Stop pissing money away, you savage.

Ya and one day that Honda, could be a Lexus!.

If my used Honda miraculously transmutes into a used Lexus, that sh*t deserves to be plated in gold and worshiped by someone.

If you don't gold plate it You could afford a new lexus!

Alright, but it won't be a convertible.
____________________________
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.
#51 Nov 04 2013 at 5:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,889 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So, in that case, how does one keep someone with a large amount of money from misusing it?


Start with a definition of "misusing" that is not synonymous with "having". Then punish those who actually misuse their money/power/whatever. Right now, the criteria seems to be "punish anyone with money". Which is stupid as hell unless you are actually assuming that merely having it is "bad". Which gets us right back to me asking people why they think this is true.
I agree, it's stupid to punish people merely because they're successful, and what is "bad" is really important to have defined. The danger is with my previous post, that a minority can have undue sway on the political process. If a minority gets too much influence in defining what it means to misuse your power it's difficult if not impossible to enforce the will of the majority.


Ok. But what does this have to do with income gaps?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CDT
Aethien, dinken18j, DSD, ElneClare, Kavekk, lolgaxe, Samira, Anonymous Guests (45)