151–160 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm saying is that having more workers is not by itself sufficient explanation. The US always had more workers YoY.
Do you believe that illegal immigrants have the same income distribution as the general population in the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't really support the argument that the Gilded Age actively caused these negative things by virtue of them taking place during the Gilded Age without supporting the argument that the Gilded Age caused positive things by virtue of them taking place during the period.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but there are direct causal links between the Gilded Age and robber barons causing huge harms, like union busting using bullets, and absolutely no causal links between robber barons and global decreases in poverty. Put another way, it's very easy to prove that without robber barons we wouldn't have had many of the terrible abuses during the Gilded Age, and also very easy to…
No robber barons mean no railway expansion and no massive expansion of jobs west, so no immigration boom. Robber barons are also responsible for financial regulation, futures markets which allowed for much greater predictability and sustained farming output, increased ties to Europe and specifically the UK over Germany, the massive increases in production brought by low oil prices and standardization of performance, arguably unions and labor reforms and a standard wage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if you have morals, you can also say they weren't worth it. You could make the same argument about slavery, etc, but suggesting it was totally worth would be pretty bonkers. Humanity can accomplish great things without dehumanizing or hurting most of the population, and being critical of the morality of these systems is a big part of that.
Are you actually saying that the advancements coming from a foundation built in the latter half of the 19th century aren't worth the cost? I don't agree with that at all, and I'm not sure I would if I had to pay that cost myself, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just for reference, being in the "top 1%" in the US means about $300k income and/or $3m net worth at age 40. That's not "buy a politician" rich, but it is also not the average professional or small business owner.
$300k per year income is pretty common for 5 years experience in silicon valley including stock grants these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How dare they ruthlessly exploit a powerless serf class and the natural environment for their personal gain! Wait, that's exactly what we're saying.
Welcome to the mid 1800s, where almost everyone is a serf almost everywhere, and the only way that'll change is through a revolution in industry, supported by uncoerced but nonetheless low-brow, hard, and nearly thankless labour.
What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. I make a pretty high wage compared to a cashier at a store, but my interests align with them a lot more than a Walton. Yet my peers are convinced that because they have the trappings of the petite bourgeoisie and a well funded 401k that they have more in common with a Koch. I'm…
Indeed. The advocacy for Universal Basic Income for the top 1% has always struck me as a wealth insurance move on their behalf. Sustain the status quo and the great unwashed won't sack your property portfolio.
Wage inequality is just a labor aristocracy, divide the masses tactic. We should also be looking at non-wage income i.e. dividends, interest, and capital gains. The untold story: non-wage income in the US is increasing as a share of total income, and the richest of the rich pay the lowest in taxes
What do you mean by "the lowest"? Percentage wise? Because I'm sure they pay millions or even billions in some cases. I agree that the rich might not pay the same percentage that you pay, but that's not even the real problem. The real problem is that we don't have equal opportunities. That gives the rich people a huge advantage when it comes to earning more money. We don't need to tax the rich more, that doesn't real…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you actually saying that the advancements coming from a foundation built in the latter half of the 19th century aren't worth the cost? I don't agree with that at all, and I'm not sure I would if I had to pay that cost myself, either.
Ignoring that it's very odd to retroactively justify immoral behavior because of unintended, positive side effects: I'm saying that being critical, like asking if the slave-like conditions of most of the population were actually necessary, is a pretty reasonable thing to do. This isn't black and white issue, like I have to pick between "a couple generations have horrible working lives" vs "antibiotics exist". I'm ask…
Also, it's not that odd. It's a direct response to the criticism you levy - that these things are not worth it. How are you to judge if you only take the immoral acts in a vacuum? You brought up slavery again; their conditions were not slave-like, simply impoverished.
I agree that it's a good idea to question whether periods of chaos, destruction or immorality are actually necessary for progress. It's been pretty much taken as a given since Hegel, but it's a good thing to verify and even within those boundaries there may be some behaviors we can effectively limit while leaving the good bits.
As to your final argument, I don't actually know if that's true, but it's immaterial because that's not how people have done it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to old (2014-2015) measurements, to be in the 1% you need to be pulling in at least $455k a year[1], $1.4M on average[2]. It’s probably even higher today. That’s way way beyond the typical “professional at the height of his career.” 1: https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-t... 2: http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/u-s-top-one-per...
That's household income, including your spouse's income. Your half of that is significantly less than what a senior cardiologist or senior partner at a law firm makes.