Topic: Do we owe everyone an equal start in life?
started by: TheCatt
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 15 2016,15:12
Or maybe not owe, but should we, as a country, feel obligated to provide everyone with an equal start?When I look at my family's budget, I know we make a lot of money. A lot more than the median family income. Yet, after retirement, college savings, etc, we don't have a ton left over every month [Just looking at my 1 income here, not counting my 2nd income]. The average age of our cars is 13 years. We don't live opulently.
When I look at people around who make median income or something similar, I honestly don't know how they make it. Approximately 62% of Americans couldn't afford an emergency $1,000 bill. Student loans are are $35,000 on average for graduates, up from $10,000 20 years (no idea if that # is appropriately adjusted for inflation, but even in nominal dollars, that far exceeds inflation). We've allowed illegal immigration to devalue manual labor. Minimum wage is lower in real terms than it was 50 years ago. The middle class (2/3rd to 200% of median household income) is shrinking, and its share of income has dropped from 62% to 43% over the past 44 years. The gains have gone entirely to people in the upper class.
Education is the responsible of the government, primarily local and state. Yet even in localities, there's a wide range of educational availability and quality.
Should America provide a more level starting place for people? What would that involve?
Just some thoughts... but I honestly don't see how America avoids becoming more socialist in the next 20 years.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 15 2016,16:28
What isn't level about it?
Posted by Vince on Feb. 15 2016,16:37
I think we have an obligation to help people where we can as individuals, not collectively. There's no grace (or altruism or whatever) in compulsory giving.I agree that we are going to probably become more socialist. At least until the dollar collapses. Then I'm not sure which direction we'll go in.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 15 2016,16:40
As far as I can see everyone has an equal chance to "succeed," and even more chance if you aren't white, whatever the definition is of "success" is, as far as their natural talents can take them. If their parents couldn't give them a head start, I don't see how that is anyone elses responsibility.I have been looking up private school scholarships, recently. There's tons out there... if you aren't white.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 15 2016,16:58
What's the median income you're using as a yard stick?QUOTE
Yet, after retirement, college savings, etc, we don't have a ton left over every month
QUOTE
When I look at people around who make median income or something similar, I honestly don't know how they make it
They aren't saving for college or retirement.
QUOTE
Student loans are are $35,000 on average for graduates, up from $10,000 20 years
Hence my remark that they aren't saving for college. How many of them pay that shit back? They can also sign up for the army and get free school.
QUOTE
Approximately 62% of Americans couldn't afford an emergency $1,000 bill.
Maybe they ought to sign up for that sweet, sweet Obamacare insurance which was supposed to save the world.
QUOTE
We've allowed illegal immigration to devalue manual labor.
Unless you want to spend exorbitant amounts of cash bouncing them back across the border, that sort of thing is inevitable.
QUOTE
Minimum wage is lower in real terms than it was 50 years ago.
Funny, the manufacturing capacities of Mexico, China, India, etc., were lower 50 years ago than they are now.
QUOTE
The middle class (2/3rd to 200% of median household income) is shrinking, and its share of income has dropped from 62% to 43% over the past 44 years. The gains have gone entirely to people in the upper class.
I call bullshit. My family was decidedly middle class when I was growing up, albeit white collar middle class. They managed to get 2 out of 3 kids to finish college (the last one got 3 years through, quit for a decade or so, then started again). Even if you adjust income for inflation, all 3 children are making more than their parents: one works in bank finances, one in telephony, then there's me. If my stupid ass had paid more attention to scholarships when I was a high school senior, I'd be up about $50K. For my age, I might be considered upper. Then again, I don't have a mortgage, car payment, wife, or kids to worry about.
QUOTE
Education is the responsible of the government, primarily local and state.
No, it's not. They provide the bottom of the barrel safety net. Education is both a personal responsibility and, up to a certain age, that of the parents.
QUOTE
Should America provide a more level starting place for people?
Really? Don't we already provide grants, scholarships, affirmative action, quotas? Your starting place is generally as level as you're willing to bust your ass.
QUOTE
What would that involve?
Ponies, free ones, and shitloads of them. Perhaps people who understand that "earning a living" from this point on is going to include competing against dudes and technology from other countries. I'm waiting for checkout jobs to go the way of the elevator operator.
QUOTE
What isn't level about it?
Said the great white oppressor.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 15 2016,17:20
(GORDON @ Feb. 15 2016,19:28)
QUOTE
What isn't level about it?
Rich people can afford fancy private school. Can afford to send their kids to fancy colleges. Can afford to have their kids graduate without debt. Tutors for children. Better and more stable home life. Better nutrition. More opportunities to explore the world. Variance in health care quality.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 15 2016,17:25
You say "equal start," but I guess I need to ask what you see the as the goal?
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 15 2016,17:27
(Malcolm @ Feb. 15 2016,19:58)
QUOTE
blah blah blah
The #s are complicated, since they adjust based on # of people living in the household.
But yes, you're upper class, not middle.
QUOTE
They aren't saving for college or retirement.
Right, so we're going to end up paying for those people anyway. Or they're just setup for a much harder life.
QUOTE
Maybe they ought to sign up for that sweet, sweet Obamacare insurance which was supposed to save the world.
I wasn't referring to a health care bill.
QUOTE
Unless you want to spend exorbitant amounts of cash bouncing them back across the border, that sort of thing is inevitable.
Many Americans benefited from this policy, cheaper food, etc. But many suffered. They still suffered regardless of the now situation.
QUOTE
I call bullshit.
Yes, your one anecdote clearly trumps all economists in existence. Here's mine: My father was a cardiologist. I make a lot less than him, clearly the US is doomed.
QUOTE
No, it's not. They provide the bottom of the barrel safety net.
No, 83% of the people in my county are educated by public schools. That's not a safety net, that's the norm.
QUOTE
Don't we already provide grants, scholarships, affirmative action, quotas?
I think both you and Gordon are ascribing race to a socioeconomic issue.
There's a whole lot of people in the world less capable that the denizens of this board. How do they get ahead? How do they move forward?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 15 2016,17:31
(TheCatt @ Feb. 15 2016,20:27)
QUOTE
There's a whole lot of people in the world less capable that the denizens of this board. How do they get ahead? How do they move forward?
It's easy for me to sit here and say, "Don't succumb to bad influences when you're young, stay off drugs, and read a lot... like I did," but I saw Precious, and I know some kids don't have a chance.
1. I don't think all people have the brain power to succeed in academia no matter how rich their parents are. I think this is ok.
2. Leveling the playing field means more than money, it often means taking children away from bad parents. Great big new bag of worms. How far would you want to take it?
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 15 2016,18:20
QUOTE
That's not a safety net, that's the norm.
Not my fault the norm is fucking stupid. The gov't at all levels wants to produce a stable base of voters with mediocre intelligence so the populace doesn't deduce how badly it's getting fucked.
QUOTE
How do they get ahead? How do they move forward?
First off, there's more free information available now than at any point in history. As far as this country goes, every public library has internet access. Secondly, life isn't fair, it's brutal and cruel. To get ahead or move forward...
QUOTE
"earning a living" from this point on is going to include competing against dudes and technology from other countries.
Renting out your body and brain to do menial tasks isn't getting the return it used to. You'd better have a plan to deal with that in an economic sense. I'm not going to support your ass if you want to stay in the buggy whip industry nor is that possible.
QUOTE
Rich people can afford fancy private school. Can afford to send their kids to fancy colleges. Can afford to have their kids graduate without debt. Tutors for children. Better and more stable home life. Better nutrition. More opportunities to explore the world. Variance in health care quality.
I'll give you no debt, health care, and a tendency towards a more stable home life. On the flip side there's the Clubber Lang theory which says that being the underdog is an edge when your competition is complacent.
QUOTE
Leveling the playing field means more than money, it often means taking children away from bad parents.
That's still money. Offspring aren't free.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 15 2016,18:21
(GORDON @ Feb. 15 2016,20:31)
QUOTE
2. Leveling the playing field means more than money, it often means taking children away from bad parents. Great big new bag of worms. How far would you want to take it?
I don't know. I'm just playing around with ideas at this point. I've always considered myself to be Libertarian leaning, but I don't think Libertarianism is the best thing for the country. Trying to reconcile those two. Like, as-if I were coming up with an election campaign for myself to be President - Where would I stand on the issues, for the country?
QUOTE
1. I don't think all people have the brain power to succeed in academia no matter how rich their parents are. I think this is ok.
Then what happens to those people, do we support them through charity, tax people and support them directly, indirectly tax people by higher minimum wages? Give them $10k a year and let them figure it out on their own?
I would definitely end the War On Drugs. But I don't think anyone much cares about it (despite more than 1M incarcerated people just from drugs, $50bn+ spend on enforcement, etc, etc).
Economy - I support higher minimum wage. I don't support $15/hour. I DO support an increased, < regional > minimum wage. 5 tiers might be too complicated. Maybe 3 tiers.
Taxes - I support increased marginal tax rates on high earners ($400k+). I also support slightly higher capital gains and dividend tax rates for couples above $250k. I support getting rid of the carried interest exemption (hedge fund owners). I support lower the estate tax threshold, and making estate taxes more progressive. I would strongly support tax simplification. I oppose a national sales tax. Most of this revenue would be used to pay down debt, and balance the budget.
Regulation - Federal regulation needs to be simpler, and the cost of compliance must be reduced.
Climate change - I believe that it's human caused, and supporting solar and wind power initiatives. But I would have supported Keystone XL.
Guns - I support expanded background checks, but not much else changewise.
Healthcare - This is probably one of the largest problems. I really don't know what the answer here is. But our system is expensive.
Education - I certainly don't want to subsidize people studying puppetry and bullshit in college. But I'm quite thankful for the low-cost, high-quality public education I got for my Bachelors and Masters.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 15 2016,18:28
QUOTE
I don't think all people have the brain power to succeed in academia no matter how rich their parents are. I think this is ok.
I think it's a large inequality. Brain power is connected to earning power. Some old-ass European professor taught my cousin at a particularly stringent tech uni. I'll paraphrase him. "You Americans with all your academic tests, I never understood this. In my home, if you didn't study and perform, you got left by the wayside."
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 15 2016,18:31
Well, there's always the < "Minimum income" > idea. We addressed the big wrinkles in it in our discussion, and I think with the increasing automation of the economy something like this will be needed before we have tens of millions of people homeless in the cities clustered around food banks. But that still requires a minimum amount of intelligence, too, to ensure people aren't taking their monthly $1600 (or whatever) and spending it all on day 1 on cigs and lottery tickets.Personally, I am in favor of removing kids from bad parents, and sterilizing the parents. But determining who is a bad parent with 100% reliability... hard.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 15 2016,19:17
The premise here is false though. People from families in the upper economic bracket end up in lower brackets and people starting in lower brackets end up in higher brackets. Poor people get rich and rich people piss away opportunities and end up poor. I think I saw the stat somewhere that something like 80% of all millionaires are first generation millionaires. Generations move up and down through economic classes naturally. You're not going to be able to force an equal outcome. Well, that's not entirely true. In most socialist countries everyone equally sucks. Take some time looking for real estate in Denmark. They pay out the ass for average sized homes. And they're doing this with about 40% of their take home pay.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 15 2016,19:43
Right. I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.The things I mentioned are drags on class mobility. The fact that some people move doesn't mean it is as easy as it used to be.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 15 2016,20:36
QUOTE
The fact that some people move doesn't mean it is as easy as it used to be.
When, pray tell, was this magical period when it was "easier?" Before access to information got cheaper and faster? Before technology connected the globe and had an impact even on microeconomies? Before you could self-publish your own book, song, or game? Have we started doling out titles of nobility and restricting the peasants from certain offices? It's impossible to give everyone any kind of "equal" start in life. The best that can happen is to make some of the same basic opportunities available for everyone. Opportunities are neither gifts nor guarantees.
Major issues:
How much do you intend to "help" someone?
Where do you draw the line and decree someone has wasted society's good will and will no longer receive their livelihood from public welfare, and what do you do then?
What do you do with the dependents of someone in that situation?
How much are you willing to spend to do this and where does the cash come from?
Posted by Vince on Feb. 16 2016,09:49
(TheCatt @ Feb. 15 2016,21:43)
QUOTE
Right. I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.
But that's where you'll end up. As long as outcomes aren't equal, those that suck at life will say that they aren't being given enough of a hand up to compete. What's the old saying about success having many parents but failure is an orphan? No one will accept blame for their failures, but instead blame "the system".
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 16 2016,15:49
(Vince @ Feb. 16 2016,12:49)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Feb. 15 2016,21:43)
QUOTE
Right. I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.
But that's where you'll end up. As long as outcomes aren't equal, those that suck at life will say that they aren't being given enough of a hand up to compete. What's the old saying about success having many parents but failure is an orphan? No one will accept blame for their failures, but instead blame "the system".
No, we won't end up there. No country has ended up there. That argument is useless.
At any rate, I've got < vertigo > today and the meds are killing me.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 16 2016,19:05
(TheCatt @ Feb. 15 2016,21:43)
QUOTE
Should America provide a more level starting place for people? What would that involve? ... I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.
In order for a new generation to have an equal starting point you have to - to one degree or another - redistribute the wealth of the prior generation that is producing them in the first place. And for every bit of money or effort you give to lifting up the disadvantaged children you have to take at least 10% more (sometimes much more if the system is inefficient) from the not-poor children to make it happen. TANSTAAFL.
To what degree going into Robin Hooding is ideal for society is a conversation to have. But don't start it by not admitting that is what it is.
QUOTE
The fact that some people move doesn't mean it is as easy as it used to be.
I would disagree with this premise. I suspect there was a period in the latter half of the 20th century when this was true, but I think that trend is reversing as we move into a digital economy.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 16 2016,19:15
(TPRJones @ Feb. 16 2016,22:05)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Feb. 15 2016,21:43)
QUOTE
Should America provide a more level starting place for people? What would that involve? ... I don't want to force an equal outcome. I believe people should have a solid foundation I. Life from which to start.
In order for a new generation to have an equal starting point you have to - to one degree or another - redistribute the wealth of the prior generation that is producing them in the first place. And for every bit of money or effort you give to lifting up the disadvantaged children you have to take at least 10% more (sometimes much more if the system is inefficient) from the not-poor children to make it happen. TANSTAAFL.
To what degree going into Robin Hooding is ideal for society is a conversation to have. But don't start it by not admitting that is what it is.
Did I ever say otherwise?
I even mentioned back several posts a number of taxes to help pay for things.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 16 2016,19:17
I think it wont work without taking kids away from parents because I think bad parenting is a bigger problem than lack of funds.But I am not one of these upper-income peeps who would be hit by it, so fuckit. Gimme.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 16 2016,19:30
(TheCatt @ Feb. 16 2016,21:15)
QUOTE
Did I ever say otherwise?
My apologies, I must have misunderstood something. I retract any apparent criticism.
As to the best way to deal with it, I think what you'd have to do is set a certain minimum of educational opportunities that is provided by the government. This will make sure no one starts with nothing. Of course rich parents can do more if they so choose, but I don't think their children should be punished for their ability to do so.
We should set up some sort of public school system that provides students the opportunity to get a basic diploma that indicates that they have met certain minimums of education that make them useful to entry level positions that don't require advanced training.
EDIT: No, that wasn't sarcasm. But I do think just making public schooling an actual source of education instead of glorified daycare would solve half the problem.
The other half isn't a problem of educational starting points. It's degree inflation. There are WAY too many positions that require college degrees that REALLY don't need to. Find a way to fix that and you'll fix the other half of the problem.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 16 2016,19:32
(TPRJones @ Feb. 16 2016,22:30)
QUOTE
We should set up some sort of public school system that provides students the opportunity to get a basic diploma that indicates that they have met certain minimums of education that make them useful to entry level positions that don't require advanced training.
I see what you did there.
QUOTE
My apologies, I must have misunderstood something. I retract any apparent criticism.
He's sick and grumpy tonight.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 16 2016,19:35
(TPRJones @ Feb. 16 2016,21:30)
QUOTE
There are WAY too many positions that require college degrees that REALLY don't need to. Find a way to fix that and you'll fix the other half of the problem.
Fuck yes.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 17 2016,05:07
(TheCatt @ Feb. 16 2016,17:49)
QUOTE
No, we won't end up there. No country has ended up there. That argument is useless.
At any rate, I've got < vertigo > today and the meds are killing me.
At any rate, I've got < vertigo > today and the meds are killing me.
I hope you get to feeling better.
I wish you well.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 17 2016,05:52
(Vince @ Feb. 17 2016,08:07)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Feb. 16 2016,17:49)
QUOTE
No, we won't end up there. No country has ended up there. That argument is useless.
At any rate, I've got < vertigo > today and the meds are killing me.
At any rate, I've got < vertigo > today and the meds are killing me.
I hope you get to feeling better.
I wish you well.
Thanks
The good news about vertigo is that there are maneuvers that end it (for a while - weeks or months). The bad news is that the maneuvers are like "Hey, noticed you're drunk, why don't you take these 6 shots of vodka, and I promise you'll feel better in the morning?"
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 02 2016,10:52
Is there a point where societal good is maximized by the state taking over more functions? Would efficiency and productivity increase in a world where people had fewer complex decisions to make?I've spent a lot of time retirement planning and managing investments. I spend a lot of time talking to my insurance provider, dealing with FSA accounts, etc. Is that time better spent with me working?
People faculties change dramatically over time. Is 70 or 80 year old me going to make good decisions? Would my personal welfare be maximized with other constructs around me to take care of those things?
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 02 2016,10:59
QUOTE
Is there a point where societal good is maximized by the state taking over more functions? Would efficiency and productivity increase in a world where people had fewer complex decisions to make?
QUOTE
Is that time better spent with me working?
These questions are not related.
The problem is we aren't talking about a blank slate here. The main reasons the healthcare system is such a mess is all about private companies reacting to labyrinthine government regulations. If we could wipe the slate clean and have zero regulation I think we'd be in a much better place. But unless we do that, then we have to increase regulation to the point where you no longer have choice and Uncle Sam just takes over. Because as bad as going socialist is, the one thing that doesn't work at all is being somewhere in the middle which is where we are now.
It'd be nice if the U.S. would try capitalism sometime. But we've never been a capitalistic nation; it's been government/business cronyism from the get go.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 02 2016,11:03
QUOTE
It'd be nice if the U.S. would try capitalism sometime.
Fucking amen.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 02 2016,11:05
QUOTE
Is there a point where societal good is maximized by the state taking over more functions?
Theoretically, sure. It could also go horribly wrong.
QUOTE
Would efficiency and productivity increase in a world where people had fewer complex decisions to make?
That depends greatly on what/who is making the decisions for the people.
QUOTE
I spend a lot of time talking to my insurance provider, dealing with FSA accounts, etc. Is that time better spent with me working?
If something can be done reliably and securely in an automatic fashion, then you're probably better off doing it that way. That's why machines, especially computers, were created.