51–60 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y and then get back to me on how good a motivator money is.
When I saw your link, I was fully expecting this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc -- also quite entertaining and informative.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/08/daniel_pink_on.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with you and disagree with the original poster, indeed, not everyone agrees that some wealth disparity is a good and necessary part of a healthy economy, I think the discussion merits more than a dismissive "Nope". Perhaps, if you are one of those that disagrees, you could lay out your position and argument. It is difficult to see how to avoid wealth disparity. We can argue all day about whether that is…
You can't disagree with either cperciva or btilly, because they've merely been presenting facts and figures. I don't see an opinion there
That's what drunkpotato is disagreeing with. It is clearly an opinion that isn't purely a matter of facts and figures. (One with which, as I happen, I agree.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel that you are omitting genetics as a possible (probable) significant cause of academic success, which because of the corelation with the parents own academic success will be hard to disambiguate as a variable. According to horizon (a main stream medium-high brow documentary series in the UK), separated twin studies show that as much as 50% of 'measured intelligence' can be attributed to genetics - which was fai…
Just want to point out that you are assuming that everyone has access to decent public schools. I'll bet genetics is far less important if that weren't the case.
In fact your remark is quite confused. 50% is the variation in a 'typical' population. If everyone had access to public schools genetics would be more important. Since that would eliminate one of the major factors which accounts for the other 50% (again, going with that number).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not as though all that money in mommy’s and daddy’s bank account makes their kids magically more intelligent. (But it can pay for private schools or for private lessons and so on.) FWIW, numerous studies have found that the vast majority of correlation between parental income and the academic success of children can be explained by a third factor: Parental education. Educated parents both earn more and provide f…
I feel that you are omitting genetics as a possible (probable) significant cause of academic success, which because of the corelation with the parents own academic success will be hard to disambiguate as a variable. According to horizon (a main stream medium-high brow documentary series in the UK), separated twin studies show that as much as 50% of 'measured intelligence' can be attributed to genetics - which was fai…
According to Wikipedia, 87% of the wealth belongs to the wealthiest 20%. However over 80% of that wealth belongs to the top half of that group. The figures I am looking at do not break it down farther, but my understanding is that this same relative relationship holds for the top 5%, 2%, 1%, and so on. Everyone agrees that some wealth disparity is a good and necessary part of a healthy economy. But there is a lot mor…
"Everyone agrees that some wealth disparity is a good and necessary part of a healthy economy." Nope.
I'd say reward people who are successful. The fact is the majority of people aren't successful or really very useful to society.
The top 1% of society do most of the work, so they get most of the reward. That's pretty fair IMHO.
Human motivation requires that success be rewarded. If there is no success, or "success equality" amongst everyone, then there's no motivation to do anything.
According to Wikipedia, 87% of the wealth belongs to the wealthiest 20%. However over 80% of that wealth belongs to the top half of that group. The figures I am looking at do not break it down farther, but my understanding is that this same relative relationship holds for the top 5%, 2%, 1%, and so on. Everyone agrees that some wealth disparity is a good and necessary part of a healthy economy. But there is a lot mor…
Everyone agrees that some wealth disparity is a good and necessary part of a healthy economy. But there is a lot more going on here than the straightforward "some people are older, some people save". Of course. And if you read to the bottom of my post, you'll see that I agree that there's too much inequality in the world. The point of this post isn't to argue that the existing level of wealth inequality is appropriat…
According to Wikipedia, 87% of the wealth belongs to the wealthiest 20%. However over 80% of that wealth belongs to the top half of that group. The figures I am looking at do not break it down farther, but my understanding is that this same relative relationship holds for the top 5%, 2%, 1%, and so on. Everyone agrees that some wealth disparity is a good and necessary part of a healthy economy. But there is a lot mor…
"Everyone agrees that some wealth disparity is a good and necessary part of a healthy economy." Nope.
No thanks. That idea is brain dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue, as a 22 year old economist just entering the workforce, that the fact that people just entering their retirement hold the most wealth is quite a social problem. For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics.
Obviously, we should have a political system that gives higher weight to the votes of people who will participate (suffer?) in the system longer. Therefore, everyone between 18 and 24 years of age gets 10 votes, between 24-30 9, etc, until people over 78 get zero votes (just like minor children under 18). This would deal with the problem nicely. And yes, I am kidding.
Thank you! As soon as those wealth inequality posts started popping up I've been waiting for someone to point out the idiocy of lamenting the wealth inequality between 22 yearolds just entering the workforce and 65 yearolds about to retire.
I'd argue, as a 22 year old economist just entering the workforce, that the fact that people just entering their retirement hold the most wealth is quite a social problem. For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics.
I know this is a popular one, especially on Reddit etc to moan about - old people vote the most, but they don't like our drugs, gay marriage etc
But the fact is old people have more experience, more knowledge, and are just far more sensible. We'll all be there at some point.