Do Corporations 'Believe'?Follow

The other half aren't real patriots

Especially if your Republican dream to stare out on an ocean of white.

Voided.

Because then I can point out the fact that the SoL metrics aren't worse, and have an easy rebuttal of flawed thinking.

Norway has >100k per capita GDP, Sweden has 58k vs 53k in the US, and both those states don't have their per capita shifted up by huge capital accretions as the US does. If you control for this effect, the results are even more compelling, but I won't do this to forestall the inevitable criticisms.

Edited, Apr 1st 2014 2:06pm by Timelordwho

Like with guns? Well, if we eliminate the bottom 20%, Our per-capita goes up roughly 25%!

Also it would solve a lot of the racial tension.

If you made guns cheaper and easier to acquire you'd solve both the crime and economy problems at the same time.

Wouldn't a straight per capita thing be more appropriate? I mean there's obviously some things such as housing subsidies or what not that would be closer tied to GDP, but your society is still buying lots of things like food and medicine on the open market. A poor country could spend an enormous percentage of their GDP on social services and not raise their standard of living anywhere close to even US levels.

Between 2008 and 2013, 33% of the "price basket" increase is just Tide laundry soap and Folger's coffee. 50% is between those two items, bacon and 24-packs of Coke.

Seems like a little intelligent shopping can largely mitigate the increase. That milk price looks very high and the table at the bottom confirms that the March 2014 milk price was about 25% lower.

Anyway... eh. Not very interesting.

Well..when you cry "we're headed for massive inflation" for ten years and nothing happens, you can either admit you were wrong or cherry pick items to try to make up an imaginary inflation measure. Guess which one happened.

You just said that humans are inherently greedy. If X and Y have the same bare standard of living at the lower rungs, but Y has the opportunity to do way, way way better by working harder/smart/faster/getting lucky, then we can't we raise the bare minimum for X so we don't have people dying of starvation or preventable diseases and making things more difficult for the Ys?

I was in an X situation. I derped around around played homemaker, and wrote a novel for the lulz that didn't sell, while my husband did the hard work. Then I realized I missed having money for shiny new computer toys. So I got off my lazy bum, got a master's degree, and started working first part time, then full time again. Now I have all the money I could want for shiny new computer toys.

The bare minimum is a roof over your head, basic utilities (power, water, phone, and these days Internet), adequate clothing, food enough not to starve or die of nutrition deficiency diseases (e.g. scurvy or rickets), basic healthcare (plastic surgery or fertility treatments don't count) and if you do have a job, some means of transportation.

I don't think denying people those basic things because they are "lazy" is morally correct for society. Not everyone has the intellectual capacity or physical stamina for work. Children, the elderly, and the disabled should be guaranteed the basics. Nobody should starve, die of exposure, or get sepsis from a tooth infection in "the greatest nation in the world."

Those adults who do have the intellectual capacity - and the inherent greed that comes with it - will do whatever they can to go beyond the basics until they've achieved whatever level of income matches their personal greed.

I'm a working taxpayer though so I am Peter. And I'm okay with helping Paul. You're the crying third party here... want to be Mary?