Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 2315 2316 [2317] 2318 2319 ... 2357

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 1256466 times)

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34740 on: December 14, 2019, 10:06:29 am »

You’re using percentages. Percentages don’t tell you the real story, and not much beyond trends and proportions.

Prior to the crash, the 1% could buy everything they’d ever need over an entire lifetime several times over, and they still could after the crash. They lost a great deal of wealth, as one might imagine in a crash, but nothing they couldn’t handle.

The crash didn’t level the playing field in any capacity. There are people still struggling to recover (wages are just now returning to pre-crash levels for example) from it, so you need more than superficial statistical analysis to support that claim.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

dragdeler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cyber-Voodoo Aficionado
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34741 on: December 14, 2019, 05:11:13 pm »

Sure but aren't we just talking about the people who went on to have two bowls of rice daily when we talk about gains in the bottom half? (whoops this is MURIpol) How much do you even need to earn to be part of the top half?

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34742 on: December 14, 2019, 05:25:47 pm »

$Many. At least.

Max™

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CULL:SQUARE]
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34743 on: December 14, 2019, 05:33:13 pm »

If you're over 100k a year then you're just on the upper end of the income chart, not sure what the assets breakdown is.

I'm confused how you get some of those numbers for the 1% though, it doesn't look like the chart is showing relative proportions like yours did (as in only the 1% colored section is theirs) it looks like straight numbers, so the 1% went from over ~62 Trillion in wealth down to over ~55 Trillion in wealth and back up to something over ~105 Trillion in wealth.

Over the same period it looks like the bottom 50% went from maybe 2 Trillion, down to less than 1 Trillion, and back up a bit over 2 Trillion?

I know the bottom percentile has negative wealth, while the top 0.1% and 0.01% have ridiculously huge chunks of the total wealth in the US.

Note: ublock/umatrix/my CSS rules doesn't want to let me see the numbers on the fed reserve site properly so I can't make head or tail of the gibberish it shows.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 05:35:28 pm by Max™ »
Logged
Engraved here is a rendition of an image of the Dwarf Fortress learning curve. All craftsdwarfship is of the highest quality. It depicts an obsidian overhang which menaces with spikes of obsidian and tears. Carved on the overhang is an image of Toady One and the players. The players are curled up in a fetal position. Toady One is laughing. The players are burning.
The VectorCurses+1 tileset strikes the square set and the severed part sails off in an arc!

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34744 on: December 14, 2019, 05:43:28 pm »

This is not a difficult thing to search for on the internet folks.

50th percentile in 2017 was a net wealth of just over $97000.  For 2019, the income percentile is about $63k in income for a household to be in the 50th percentile. (I don't know why I couldn't find the 2019 wealth percentiles quickly, it's a Mystery!)

Also, I think that the wealth distribution is really a red herring in terms of wealth. What really matters is if the lower wealth / income brackets are high enough to have an enjoyable and sustainable standard of living.  Yes I know there are psychological effects if your neighbor has 10 times what you have, and I agree it feels ridiculous that there are people who have multiple-lifetimes' worth of resources at their disposal.  But if your poorest have sustainable food, housing, and health security then the "wealth gap" is really just a tool to manipulate the masses.

Of course, we don't have a minimum where the poorest have food, housing, and health security; those are too tightly tied to employment.  The conservative side of me says they should be tied to some extent to employment, but you should not lose health insurance or your house if you are out a job for a week.  And no, I don't count COBRA as generally it's expensive and terrible.
Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34745 on: December 14, 2019, 06:03:37 pm »

You’re using percentages. Percentages don’t tell you the real story, and not much beyond trends and proportions.

Prior to the crash, the 1% could buy everything they’d ever need over an entire lifetime several times over, and they still could after the crash. They lost a great deal of wealth, as one might imagine in a crash, but nothing they couldn’t handle.

The crash didn’t level the playing field in any capacity. There are people still struggling to recover (wages are just now returning to pre-crash levels for example) from it, so you need more than superficial statistical analysis to support that claim.

Yes, but I was responding specifically to a claim of "but my graph proves you wrong" by using data from that same graph.

Also the existence of "people struggling to recover" seems like anecdotal evidence. People are always struggling. If the top 1% were gaining 8% wealth per year and the bottom 50% gaining 2.7% wealth per year before the crash, but now both are in the 4.5% p/a range that in itself is significant. You say the rich are still getting richer? no shit. But if the previous trajectory held they would be gaining wealth about twice as fast, and the bottom 50% about half as fast as that data suggests. But, it's not actually that far off right now from the bottom 50% gaining wealth faster, in percentage terms than the top 1%. Combating tax loopholes and reducing the cost of healthcare would probably push things into the realm when the bottom 50% are gaining percentage wealth faster than the top 1% in the USA now. Point is: the thing where the rich gain money faster than the poor pre-dates the crash, and was much worse before the crash.

Also, that graph is wealth, which is excess after wages. When I focused on income, people said "but wealth is the true marker!". Now I'm focusing on the wealth data that was provided, and now it's jumping back to "but you're neglecting income!" which seems like circular logic.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 06:29:52 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34746 on: December 14, 2019, 06:43:46 pm »

Of course, we don't have a minimum where the poorest have food, housing, and health security; those are too tightly tied to employment.  The conservative side of me says they should be tied to some extent to employment, but you should not lose health insurance or your house if you are out a job for a week.
Eh... I understand the sentiment, but ultimately I don't think -- especially in the richest country on the bloody planet -- anyone should be going homeless, starving, or dying of preventable or curable health concerns, even if they don't work. The price for that should be at most a lack of luxuries, not fucking dying, or starving, or living on the streets, y'know? Nevermind that means testing and junk has largely been proven wasteful horseshit, maybe we should just be sparing some of that world dominating pile of resources to provide a bare goddamn minimum for our people, preferably without forcing them to make their lives extra shit to gain access to it.

Just. Food, water, shelter. Access to a doctor without it permafucking their lives. Whatever your condition or (lack of) employment. If problems arise from just making sure people have that, we can figure out where to go from there, a point where people have a chance to be healthy and not have to worry about fucking dying from some sort of privation or ruining themselves financially to avoid it. Can't imagine said problems would be worse than the shit we deal with now, if they even meaningfully crop up to begin with.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 06:49:51 pm by Frumple »
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34747 on: December 14, 2019, 07:07:01 pm »

And a big point of where the money is going to come from ... why do you think USA has such a big prison population compared to just about anywhere else? So, the nation saves pennies on not providing basic needs, then not surprisingly there's a lot of crime, and you spend big bucks to put them in prison. The cost of prisons is estimated here as $182 billion per year. Better services would probably knock that in half, saving about $100 billion a year. Plus all the other associated costs of an elevated crime rate. People say they don't want to pay for others to eat, then wonder why their insurance premiums are so high and they're paying so much in taxes and why the police are so heavily armed. It's all linked.

EDIT: some would argue against that by saying "criminals are naturally criminal, so improving services won't reduce crime at all". But, the logical response to that is to ask: why only in the USA then? Are Americans just naturally more criminally inclined than other nations?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 07:13:14 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Max™

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CULL:SQUARE]
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34748 on: December 14, 2019, 07:53:22 pm »

I wasn't saying you were wrong really, just that your chart was old and that you mentioned wealth but it showed income.

I mean, strictly speaking you were a bit off on the idea that the wealthiest folks weren't doing as well after the crisis, but it could be argued that some of them did indeed lose out and drop from the top iters, but overall whatever losses the wealthiest portions of the population had during the crisis have been a speedbump which they've been accelerating away from again.

As for prison, we have for profit prisons, which is completely fucked.

We have a shrinking proportion of the population made up of white folk who have known the demographic changes were approaching for decades, and accordingly they've been striving to reduce or eliminate any risk of them losing control over the country.

Probably because so many of them have done little but fuck over and demonize anyone slightly darker than they are, so they expect some sort of probably violent reckoning if anyone else got into power, because it's what they would do. Stop them from immigrating if you can, criminalize their freedom so you can lock them up if you can't, and act shocked but do nothing if they get killed by cops.

Do unto others before they get a chance to do it to you. American Colonists: Ruining the lives of Brown People Since the 15th Century!
Logged
Engraved here is a rendition of an image of the Dwarf Fortress learning curve. All craftsdwarfship is of the highest quality. It depicts an obsidian overhang which menaces with spikes of obsidian and tears. Carved on the overhang is an image of Toady One and the players. The players are curled up in a fetal position. Toady One is laughing. The players are burning.
The VectorCurses+1 tileset strikes the square set and the severed part sails off in an arc!

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34749 on: December 14, 2019, 08:32:04 pm »

The $182 billion quoted is incidentally astonishingly close to the US median income of $63k a year times the "almost 3 million people" the department of business labor statistics say are employed in the criminal justice industry.

And regarding "people don't want to pay for others to eat" - that's false. Most people are willing to pay others so they can eat in exchange for something of value. That's basic commerce after all.  What the US culture doesn't like is paying for other people to eat in exchange for nothing.

This is a tough philosophy to overcome.  Yes it would be nice to live in a world where people just grew food and stocked it in stores and whatnot just because they enjoyed farming, or because they enjoyed making robots to farm, or whatever.  But we don't live in that world (yet? ever?)
Logged

sluissa

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34750 on: December 15, 2019, 02:01:03 pm »

That eating argument is very suspect, given that so many large corporations pull shit like keeping employees just below the number of hours for full time employment, so benefits don't have to be paid out, and you end up with significant numbers of people working nearly full time hours on government benefits like SNAP. Or education for certain industries being so expensive that the debt they're in once they start working, even at full time benefits and wages, still puts them on government benefits to make ends meet.

People often don't really want to pay others for anything at all. It's simply legal requirement and the occasionally successful market forces that force people to pay employees a wage to keep them from simply leaving.

That's not a universal truth. But it's truth so far as a successful company in a competitive market will likely have someone near the top engaging in some form of cost cutting at the expense of employees.
Logged

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34751 on: December 15, 2019, 09:00:51 pm »

I was talking about people, not corporations.  Anytime you aggregate people into an organization like a company or a government, things start to skew. It's demonstrable that the anonymity of the aggregate allows people to start doing things like you described, where companies / governments start trying to shift the cost/benefit equation around.

Most of this is actually the result of some group thinking they know best how to help everyone. This is crazy dangerous.  So some law gets written (poorly), and then companies take advantage of it.  I mean the employment laws are a great one - why is there a concept of full time vs part time is dumb; any form of benefit should just scale linearly with hours worked, not with some kind of all-or-nothing cutoff.  I mean sure you can define "40 hours/week" as 100%, but then if you work 20 hours a week you get 50% benefits, not zero.  But that would probably mean real health insurance reform too.  Part of the trouble I think our legislators have is that they try to tackle only one issue at a time, without realizing they are all intertwined and you have to address about a dozen things at once.  Or maybe they do realize it and they are using it to their advantage - it's probably some kind of sliding scale.
Logged

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34752 on: December 16, 2019, 04:50:09 am »

There are lots of regulations in Norway designed to kinda help people from themselves, including an enforced retirement savings plan. Basically, the company you work for is responsible for taking a chunk off of your paycheck and putting it into a retirement account for you, something like 12-13% of your wages while working there.

However, if you work at that company for less than 12 months, you're not entitled to retirement benefits associated with that company (since you obviously didn't work there until retirement!)... Including the money they've set aside for your pension.

You're not getting it back either. It's just gone. Eaten by the system, and explained away as "reimbursement to the company to cover the costs associated with frequent change of employment".

LordBaal

  • Bay Watcher
  • System Lord
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34753 on: December 16, 2019, 05:50:41 am »

Woa what a crappy thing. You really should strive to spend more than one year in ever work, which is logical I guess anyway but sure it's unfair not getting back that 12~13% of the salary. Well I guess is better than the Venezuelan system where you get 6% of your salary discounted for several not working in any shape or form public systems and social benefits. Burning the money would at least produce some recidual heat and ashes that could be used as fertilizer, and that would be like 1000000% far more productive than what they supposedly spend it, if we had cash that's it. In reality it simply gets stolen by the government.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2019, 05:53:09 am by LordBaal »
Logged
I'm curious as to how a tank would evolve. Would it climb out of the primordial ooze wiggling it's track-nubs, feeding on smaller jeeps before crawling onto the shore having evolved proper treds?
My ship exploded midflight, but all the shrapnel totally landed on Alpha Centauri before anyone else did.  Bow before me world leaders!

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #34754 on: December 16, 2019, 06:01:29 am »

There's also funny stuff like withholding a certain amount of pay until right around summer, where you get a big payout of "vacation money" that sends a hefty percentage of the population out of the country in a mass exodus to Spain. Then there's a period in November-December where you pay half income tax, since it's the holidays and you probably need the cash.

The term "Nanny state" really does apply in some areas, heh.
Pages: 1 ... 2315 2316 [2317] 2318 2319 ... 2357