If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Cities)   American cities' equality ratings puts them on par with countries like Swaziland and El Salvador   (theatlanticcities.com) divider line 129
    More: Cool, Swaziland, El Salvador, Americans, american cities, United States, CIA World Factbook, American Community Survey, Joseph Stiglitz  
•       •       •

7811 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Oct 2012 at 2:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-09 06:20:49 PM  
do they have Obama phones in Denmark?
 
2012-10-09 06:25:55 PM  

vpb: So wealthy people live in cities? What point is he trying to make?


Sounds like his point is that all the poor people tend to love where there are no jobs, seems every place that was "equal" were mainly dirt poor or had a depressed local economy.
 
2012-10-09 06:33:24 PM  

SandMann: Inequality in America:

U.S. top earners pay larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation 

"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America's rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)."


Ok, somebody needs a Statistics 101 refresher here:

Nation A has a GDP of $300, and a population of 3 people, the highest earner making $101, the lowest $99. All pay the same tax rate. So the highest-earning 33% of the population contributes about 33% of the tax burden. Clear enough, right?

Now, Nation B has the same $300 of GDP, and the same population of 3, therefore, same per capita income as Nation A. But over here, top earner makes $280, whereas the other two make $10 each, stuck well below poverty line. Same tax rate across the board.

So, during presidential election season, though, the top-earner in Nation A biatches, whines and bellyaches that he's ponnying up 93% of the tax contribution (leaving out of the discourse the fact that he owns 93% of the wealth generated), while claiming that the 66% of the population lives expecting welfare handouts, so screw them! (and at the same time making them work for him at Wal Mart wage rates).

In other words, you have given the answer to the question of why everybody here SHOULD pay attention to the Ginni coeficient.
 
2012-10-09 06:33:34 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Gwyrddu: Have you ever thought about why that is? Who benefits from high immigration, both legal and illegal? Maybe the same rich people who want to depress wages and the cost of labor and pull strings in government so nothing will ever seriously be done about immigration, regardless of who is in power. Just saying, the immigration problem seems to me to be just another symptom of wealth inequality where a few people hold all the power and use that power to make everyone else as powerless as possible (in other words, places with a high Gini index).

Did you consider your logic before hitting submit? Everyone benefits from high immigration, everyone. Population increase directly translates into an expanding market, and an expanding market creates jobs (more people = more needs = more work available). Immigration is not a symptom of wealth-inequality within a given population, it is a source of wealth-inequality. A low-barrier-to-entry labor market is the very definition of opportunity to anyone seeking it. You might call them exploited by super-wealthy, I say that many of them risked their lives to be here so those wealthy people employing them can't be all that bad, can they?


perspective is everything isn't it?

I mean in a country where only 8% are employed by the government, the perspective that the rich are evil, poor soul sucking, motherfarkers has always bewildered me. I have worked in the private sector all my life, and I am grateful for each and every rich person who wrote me a check for my services. Oddly enough, I have yet to work for money from a poor person.

/i feel so exploited
 
2012-10-09 06:33:51 PM  

WhyteRaven74: vpb: So wealthy people live in cities? What point is he trying to make?

That the income disparity in the US in the cities is quite high and as a nation overall it's not much better.


So what? Some people are lazy, big deal.

Equality is not something to strive for, happiness is and whether the poor in this country want to admit it or not, they earn more in a day than most people in really poor nations make in a month. Life was never meant to be equal.
 
2012-10-09 06:42:23 PM  

Sultan_Azteca: Ok, somebody needs a Statistics 101 refresher here:

Nation A has a GDP of $300, and a population of 3 people, the highest earner making $101, the lowest $99. All pay the same tax rate. So the highest-earning 33% of the population contributes about 33% of the tax burden. Clear enough, right?

Now, Nation B has the same $300 of GDP, and the same population of 3, therefore, same per capita income as Nation A. But over here, top earner makes $280, whereas the other two make $10 each, stuck well below poverty line. Same tax rate across the board.

So, during presidential election season, though, the top-earner in Nation A biatches, whines and bellyaches that he's ponnying up 93% of the tax contribution (leaving out of the discourse the fact that he owns 93% of the wealth generated), while claiming that the 66% of the population lives expecting welfare handouts, so screw them! (and at the same time making them work for him at Wal Mart wage rates).

In other words, you have given the answer to the question of why everybody here SHOULD pay attention to the Ginni coeficient.



your wrong. and fark math.

If in your example nation B guy ( you can't read your own post BTW ) is biatching about his tax burden of 93% of total then he has every right to. How did he get such a lopsided share of the pie? Was he sweeping floors like the other 2 or did he, conceive, fund, and construct the widget factory in the first place? And if he hadn't done those things, all three of them would have made JACK shiat. So then they are Haiti, and not USA or even Belgium.
 
2012-10-09 06:48:41 PM  

Vectron: Nightsweat: Vectron: A country spends decades importing people from 3rd world countries and then it is surprised it looks like a 3rd world country. Damn out how does that work?

Yeah, letting those Irish in was a huge mistake. ANd don't get me started on the Italians.


Those aren't 3rd world countries. I'm talking about poor people from Central America. We're importing poverty.


And at the turn of the XX century, immigrants from Italy and Ireland came in massive immigration waves with abundant wealth to invest in US soil, right?

C'mon son, grab a book! It doesn't hurt.
 
2012-10-09 06:51:36 PM  

serial_crusher: So, the solution is to shuffle rich people around to average out the local numbers? Or just have all the rich people take their money out of the country so everyone's poor?


That's the historical solution.
 
2012-10-09 06:53:16 PM  

Gwyrddu: arentol: And look,they don't beat the US at human development either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_I n dex

Do you even read your own links? Norway is listed as number one in the human development index.


Nah! Norway isn't a Scandinavian country, ... is it?
 
2012-10-09 06:53:22 PM  

12349876: mysticcat: The U.S. could do better, but comparing us to countries like Denmark and Sweden is unfair

So much for American Exceptionalism.


If we transferred only the illegal members of our poor immigrants to Sweden, I bet we'd look a lot better in the comparison.
 
2012-10-09 06:54:41 PM  

CmndrFish: The Scandinavian model results in less poor people while still retaining high overall wealth. Why would we not want that?


We would. And if we had a population that was 95% scandinavian, it would probably work.
 
2012-10-09 06:56:57 PM  

mysticcat: What a ridiculous statistic. The goal is not equality. If that were the case, a nation that was entirely dirt poor would be the winner.

What you're looking for is standard of living. For instance, in Swaziland, 70% of the population lives below the poverty line, in the Dominican Republic 34%, in El Salvador 37%, Madagascar 50%, Phillipines 27%, Nigeria 70%. Jamaica and Malaysia are actually pretty reasonable at 4%(!) and 17%. In the U.S. that number is 15%. (CIA World Factbook). The U.S. could do better, but comparing us to countries like Denmark and Sweden is unfair


Having been to both Jamaica and Malaysia (lived there for a while actually)... I can say this...

Shut up about shiatholes you obviously haven't visited.

I was offered a very high level position in Shell if only I would move permanently to Malaysia. -Three levels up in management over 120 people. I looked around, and said, "see ya" without a job in hand.

Malaysia (which you obviously aren't familar with) still uses slave labor and still kills slaves that try to escape. They just have them sign a contract first (that they can't get out of), and then take away their passport.

Not to say there aren't good people in Malaysia... There are... quite a few actually. But the country is a shiathole and if you think having an "average" worker going home to a thatch roof and dirt floors is acceptable (in IT), then you need your head examined.
 
2012-10-09 06:59:21 PM  

Nightsweat: Pray 4 Mojo: Somebody should write a book about what happens when we strive for equality as a goal.

Somebody should write a song about it too.

How about just a graph?
[gccds.org image 412x380]


gccds.org

I know the point that graph is trying to make, but the range shown is so dominated by WWII and its sequelae that it's hard to prove it shows what it thinks it shows. The US greatly profited from being the sole industrial survivor of WWII. It took much of the rest of the world into the late 70s to start catching up in real terms. Coincidentally, we see the expected effects of a capital gains slowdown starting in the 1930s followed by a general boost in manufacturing wealth and the rest of the world ripped itself apart in blood and fire and literally laid waste to their cities.

Thing is, that's not really an easily repeatable method.
 
2012-10-09 07:06:28 PM  

This text is now purple: Thing is, that's not really an easily repeatable method.


IDK... the ME is already there, Greece is on fire. Spain and Italy have rising separatist movements, Most of the rest of Europe is either swamped in debt, or holding piles of worthless debt. Chinese are destroying everything Japanese over those Islands.. maybe we can just sit and watch a repeat.
 
2012-10-09 07:14:52 PM  

Sticky Hands: IDK... the ME is already there, Greece is on fire. Spain and Italy have rising separatist movements, Most of the rest of Europe is either swamped in debt, or holding piles of worthless debt. Chinese are destroying everything Japanese over those Islands.. maybe we can just sit and watch a repeat.


add in the middle east and I think it's time to get a bunker....
 
2012-10-09 07:16:00 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Did you consider your logic before hitting submit? Everyone benefits from high immigration, everyone. Population increase directly translates into an expanding market, and an expanding market creates jobs (more people = more needs = more work available). Immigration is not a symptom of wealth-inequality within a given population, it is a source of wealth-inequality. A low-barrier-to-entry labor market is the very definition of opportunity to anyone seeking it. You might call them exploited by super-wealthy, I say that many of them risked their lives to be here so those wealthy people employing them can't be all that bad, can they?


Do you know that one of reasons that the dark ages was because of the black plagues? It's true, losing half of the population of Europe suddenly caused the price of labor to skyrocket. Suddenly all the peasants had money and weren't in debt any more, and were no longer bounded to the land and middle class would develop along with leisure and the pursuit of something higher than survival in misery in the hopes of making it to heaven.

A bit of an aside I know, but my point is that anyone who really thinks that more immigrants (and thus more people) is always a good thing has though has thought about the subject much less than you just claimed I did. First off there is only so much free resources available on the planet, and thus a limited carry capacity just on the surface of things. Secondly, the people who attempt to come to the US are usually poor and unskilled, and in there desperation often work for less than the going rate, thus depressing wages. and often they need more use of government services to integrate into American society. And then they often send back some of the proceeds to their home country to help their family. So really they don't make a good market at all, especially when companies could have just as well marketed to them in their home country anyway.

Look, immigration isn't something that can be put into one category, like most things some people benefit and some people lose. But in this case we have purposefully an immigration policy meant mostly to satisfy the need of under priced labor for businesses and the wealthy who don't want to pay their employees liveable wage. Just because a lot of these immigrants are being screwed over in their home country doesn't mean the ones exploited them here are the good guys. If they were good guys, they would pay enough to hire some of the 8% unemployed Americans to work those jobs instead.
 
2012-10-09 07:21:21 PM  

EatTheWorld: perspective is everything isn't it?

I mean in a country where only 8% are employed by the government, the perspective that the rich are evil, poor soul sucking, motherfarkers has always bewildered me. I have worked in the private sector all my life, and I am grateful for each and every rich person who wrote me a check for my services. Oddly enough, I have yet to work for money from a poor person.


The rich are just middleman for the labor and money of others, often poor people. Despite that, I don't begrudge anyone their wealth, only their attempts to cheat and change the system so only they benefit.
 
2012-10-09 07:33:01 PM  

mysticcat: What a ridiculous statistic. The goal is not equality. If that were the case, a nation that was entirely dirt poor would be the winner.

What you're looking for is standard of living. For instance, in Swaziland, 70% of the population lives below the poverty line, in the Dominican Republic 34%, in El Salvador 37%, Madagascar 50%, Phillipines 27%, Nigeria 70%. Jamaica and Malaysia are actually pretty reasonable at 4%(!) and 17%. In the U.S. that number is 15%. (CIA World Factbook). The U.S. could do better, but comparing us to countries like Denmark and Sweden is unfair


Unfair in what way?
 
2012-10-09 07:35:53 PM  

Gwyrddu: The rich are just middleman for the labor and money of others, often poor people. Despite that, I don't begrudge anyone their wealth, only their attempts to cheat and change the system so only they benefit.


Rich are middle men? No they make the pie. They grow the crops, they mine the oil, gas etc, they organize a service or market a product. They create wealth. There would be no dollars with out commodities. The people that produce those commodities are coincidentally rich. Every thing comes down from that. Everything. There are no tax dollars with out the creation of wealth. The only reason people have money to buy things themselves is because they have jobs from the people who do all that in the first place. You think Bill Gates was put here to make jobs for people or did he have an idea and want to profit from it?

Now the inequities in the job market, I whole heartily agree with you. Illegal labor is DESTROYING american jobs and pay. I see it on a personal level every day. This has to be fixed at the federal level. People in the field cannot be the hero's of this cause, because they will be the ones out of a job or worse out of business.
 
2012-10-09 07:36:44 PM  

Vectron: A country spends decades importing people from 3rd world countries and then it is surprised it looks like a 3rd world country. Damn out does that work?


Most countries in Europe have many immigrants from 3rd world countries as well. As do Australia and Canada. All of which have a more equal distribution of wealth than the US, and these days, many of those countries have a higher living standard than the US as well.

The decline in US living standards started somewhere in the 70s - that is when Sweden overtook the US in per capita GNP. Something went wrong back then and no one seems to want to find out what it is.
 
2012-10-09 07:45:38 PM  

kg2095: Vectron: A country spends decades importing people from 3rd world countries and then it is surprised it looks like a 3rd world country. Damn out does that work?

Most countries in Europe have many immigrants from 3rd world countries as well. As do Australia and Canada. All of which have a more equal distribution of wealth than the US, and these days, many of those countries have a higher living standard than the US as well.

The decline in US living standards started somewhere in the 70s - that is when Sweden overtook the US in per capita GNP. Something went wrong back then and no one seems to want to find out what it is.


Easy. Reagan and supply-side economics policies.
 
2012-10-09 07:58:55 PM  

kg2095: Vectron: A country spends decades importing people from 3rd world countries and then it is surprised it looks like a 3rd world country. Damn out does that work?

Most countries in Europe have many immigrants from 3rd world countries as well. As do Australia and Canada. All of which have a more equal distribution of wealth than the US, and these days, many of those countries have a higher living standard than the US as well.

The decline in US living standards started somewhere in the 70s - that is when Sweden overtook the US in per capita GNP. Something went wrong back then and no one seems to want to find out what it is.


The Civil Rights Movement...
 
2012-10-09 08:01:09 PM  

EatTheWorld: Sultan_Azteca: Ok, somebody needs a Statistics 101 refresher here:

Nation A has a GDP of $300, and a population of 3 people, the highest earner making $101, the lowest $99. All pay the same tax rate. So the highest-earning 33% of the population contributes about 33% of the tax burden. Clear enough, right?

Now, Nation B has the same $300 of GDP, and the same population of 3, therefore, same per capita income as Nation A. But over here, top earner makes $280, whereas the other two make $10 each, stuck well below poverty line. Same tax rate across the board.

So, during presidential election season, though, the top-earner in Nation B biatches, whines and bellyaches that he's ponnying up 93% of the tax contribution (leaving out of the discourse the fact that he owns 93% of the wealth generated), while claiming that the 66% of the population lives expecting welfare handouts, so screw them! (and at the same time making them work for him at Wal Mart wage rates).

In other words, you have given the answer to the question of why everybody here SHOULD pay attention to the Ginni coeficient.


your You're wrong. and fark math.

If in your example nation B guy ( you can't read your own post BTW ) is biatching about his tax burden of 93% of total then he has every right to. How did he get such a lopsided share of the pie? Was he sweeping floors like the other 2 or did he, conceive, fund, and construct the widget factory in the first place? And if he hadn't done those things, all three of them would have made JACK shiat. So then they are Haiti, and not USA or even Belgium.


I left it there to see if somebody was paying attention! 8-)

Now back to the subject: You can replace Nation A for USA-1950s and Nation B for USA-2010s. You can compare the wealth in the hands of the top 1% in the USA of today to the same group during the 40s, 50s or 70s. Check out the graph shown earlier in this string. Similar stats are also available referring to the disproportionate increase of average pay for the average CEO throughout the decades.
Do CEOs of today are more deserving of a MUCH higher pay than those in the 1940s or 60s? Why would that be? Are workers today less deserving of a respectable pay than those in the 50s? As a group, workers today are better skilled than those in decades past, thanks to increasing requirements in safety, training and other labor regulations.
With irresponsible CEOs today driving the global economy to the ground three times in less than 10 years (the pre-SarbOx scandals, the dot-com bubble burst, and the housing bubble burst), it should be the exact opposite, but that is not what has happened.
Most of the rich today do not generate jobs (knock off that fallacy, already!). Most of them will just play and stir the markets to make a killing, while everybody else is left behind fixing the mess left in their wake.
 
2012-10-09 08:47:36 PM  

This text is now purple: CmndrFish: The Scandinavian model results in less poor people while still retaining high overall wealth. Why would we not want that?

We would. And if we had a population that was 95% scandinavian, it would probably work.


I think it would work regardless. It's that when you have a population that's as ethnically divided as much as ours is, people tend to be less likely to spring for more socialistic policies, and that's why we have two major parties that both are to the right of many of the major parties of say, Europe.
 
2012-10-09 09:33:11 PM  
You know the writer of this particular article really did a disservice by not indicating why income inequality should matter to everyone.

There were a couple different reasons, but the one I remember is this: Wealthy people have significantly shorter lives in places where there is high income inequality. I think it had something to do with being lonely and depressed all alone on your private golf course who you can't invite anyone too because they'll steal your solid gold tees.

Oh and BTW, rich people all live off government handouts; it's how you get rich. The last honest rich guy was Bill Gates and even he was eventually pressured in to hiring armies of lobbyists to get him the sweet sweet quid pro quo.
 
2012-10-09 09:52:28 PM  

jwilson07: As the liberal communist lying spin machine goes into high gear again. Show me the fences, the laws, the guns and clubs that stop people from being rich and successful. Yes, thought so, the only thing stopping them from being rich is THEMSELVES. Stop blaming the US, there are easily as many white failures as there are any other color or culture. Lets put the blame where it belongs, on those too lazy and useless to try hard work as a road to riches.


Spoken like someone who's never had a major illness, injury, or surgery prevent them from doing more than shuffling around the house to the bathroom and kitchen at regular intervals. Whether that condition is temporary or permanent, it happens to a lot of people, but clearly you'd rather they just die off quickly so you can swoop in and sell their stuff, because Capitalism, right?
 
2012-10-09 10:10:00 PM  
I live in Denver. We are compared to Jamaica. Makes sense. We are about to legalize marijana.
 
2012-10-10 04:43:52 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: [snip] if you look at a city like Memphis. Some parts of town are basically shacks, but if you get over near Collierville it is mostly all high end homes. Same with St. Louis. The North side (especially inside 270) is a disaster zone.


Yeah, it's called collapse of the industrial sector combined with white flight. Memphis is an excellent example of two of the significant issues facing the US.
 
2012-10-10 08:02:37 AM  
Why should we pretend that people are equal? Provide them an equal opportunity and call it a day. There are many people out there who are smarter and harder working than I am. If they attain more success, it's nobody's fault but my own.
 
Displayed 29 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report