Jump to content

The Kids (Aren't) Alright - World Happiness Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

My only point is that the right or ability to pass down wealth or property has been at best conditional throughout most of history.
The unfettered right to devise wealth or property is a relatively recent development, although it has attained almost "human right" status in that it seems to be a feature of most post-medieval societies that are regarded as advanced (whether they actually are or not).
So, maybe it shouldn't be regarded as something sacrosanct.
Nevertheless, as Captainant elucidated, it may be better to tax/confiscate that wealth before it accumulates to better keep the assets productive for anyone except the owner.

The real problem is that we have a system (not unique in that respect) where money = power. And as that accumulates, it creates outsized power.
Do I mind that Elon Musk (a multimillionaire largely because he was staked with inherited/gifted wealth) has gobs of money? That doesn’t bother me, per se. What bothers me is the outsized power it gives him, and that he actually wields it. Whether you agree with his positions or not, it’s harmful for one man to wield that much fucking power. Note that if all he was doing with his money was two chicks at the same time and a collection of classic cars and all that other rich dude shit, I wouldn’t care. I’m not “jealous of his wealth.” Whether he has gilded toilets and such doesn’t affect my life, community, or world. But the fact that his billions give him outsized power, which he then uses, is a fucking problem. Same with Tim Dunn in Texas - have your oil billions, be all up in your church’s business…but fuck you for thinking you get to control every person in Texas because you have the money/power to do so.
Would a more stout inheritance/wealth tax help rein that in some? Maybe.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Whether he has gilded toilets and such doesn’t affect my life, community, or world.

I agree with 99% of what you said, but do think the above matters.  I'm not jealous of his wealth...or anyone's really, but I think things like golden toilets, 50-carat diamond rings, a fleet of private jets, 400 ft yachts, a warehouse full of classic cars, etc. is a sign of something more sinister.  It's wasteful, and basically a fuck you to the rest of the world.  

Yes, I know you're starving, but how am I supposed to poop without a golden toilet?!  

I'm not suggesting everyone needs to be at the same level financially, or even that people shouldn't have nicer clothes, cars, houses, etc., if they have more money, but there's a point where it just becomes obscene.  That's what I'd like to correct...I'm also not suggesting that the only way to do that is capturing excess wealth after death.  That was my initial thought, because I didn't want to punish people for making money.  I just think when that money reaches a certain level, it shouldn't all be passed to the next generation because it creates an aristocracy and reinforces the false notion that people with money are better than those without it.

For "in lifetime" correction, I'd suggest a maximum wage, among other things.  For example, there is no reason the CEO of a company should earn, on average, 344x the average employee...which it was in 2022...and it's only getting worse.

For comparison, in 1965 it was 21x.  That's just shameless greed IMO.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not really super interested in correcting ratios or conspicuous consumption; I’m concerned with raising the floors above the basement for everyone.  Getting upset about someone else having “obscene” wealth is meaningless in a vacuum, it’s just jealousy— reminded of experiments where monkeys are fine eve both monkeys get one treat each, but then they lose their shit if one monkey gets two treats and the other monkey gets four. Wealth only becomes obscene when there are people can’t afford the fundamentals while a few others have private jets. 
 

If we could build a society where everyone had clean and safe housing, ample healthy food, access to medical care when sick that won’t bankrupt you, education for all and excellent education for any who can handle it, clean air and water, safe cities and neighborhoods—-then great, I’m fine with a tax rate of zero and accumulation of infinite billions for anyone who can do it.

In practice, it’s not possible and I’m fine for a balance where taking risks and innovating is rewarded while at the same time ensuring that the risk of failure or simply choosing to pursue an ordinary life does not mean catastrophe. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m not really super interested in correcting ratios or conspicuous consumption; I’m concerned with raising the floors above the basement for everyone.  Getting upset about someone else having “obscene” wealth is meaningless in a vacuum, it’s just jealousy— reminded of experiments where monkeys are fine eve both monkeys get one treat each, but then they lose their shit if one monkey gets two treats and the other monkey gets four. Wealth only becomes obscene when there are people can’t afford the fundamentals while a few others have private jets. 
 

If we could build a society where everyone had clean and safe housing, ample healthy food, access to medical care when sick that won’t bankrupt you, education for all and excellent education for any who can handle it, clean air and water, safe cities and neighborhoods—-then great, I’m fine with a tax rate of zero and accumulation of infinite billions for anyone who can do it.

In practice, it’s not possible and I’m fine for a balance where taking risks and innovating is rewarded while at the same time ensuring that the risk of failure or simply choosing to pursue an ordinary life does not mean catastrophe. 

Here are the issues I have with this view...mind you, I respect your right to have it, I just don't agree.

You say you want to raise the floor, not correct ratios.  Ok, how?  You can't raise the floor without money and that money is tied up in the hands of the elite...and outside a relatively few generous billionaires planning to donate after death, they've shown zero signs of giving up that wealth to help raise the floor.

The Top 1% hold 30% or America's wealth...the Top 10% gets you to nearly 70%....whereas the bottom 50% hold just 2.5% of the wealth.  That means the Top 10% hold $92 Trillion in assets, while the bottom 50% have about $3.4 Trillion.  And it's not getting better (see image below spoilered due to ssize)

In other words, if you took just 10% of the assets of the Top 10%, leaving them with a paltry $83 Trillion, and redistributed it to the bottom 50% you would almost quadruple their wealth.  Isn't that you're stated goal?  To raise the basement?

If you see another way to accomplish your goal, I'm all ears, please enlighten me.

This is not "jealousy"...I, like most here, live a comfortable life.  It's an exercise of human value and the promotion of meritocracy.  

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.15618a42a3468e2b6e8a31b79726e74e.png

Visualizing Wealth Distribution in America (1990-2023) (visualcapitalist.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Here are the issues I have with this view...mind you, I respect your right to have it, I just don't agree.

You say you want to raise the floor, not correct ratios.  Ok, how?  You can't raise the floor without money and that money is tied up in the hands of the elite...and outside a relatively few generous billionaires planning to donate after death, they've shown zero signs of giving up that wealth to help raise the floor.

The Top 1% hold 30% or America's wealth...the Top 10% gets you to nearly 70%....whereas the bottom 50% hold just 2.5% of the wealth.  That means the Top 10% hold $92 Trillion in assets, while the bottom 50% have about $3.4 Trillion.  And it's not getting better (see image below spoilered due to ssize)

In other words, if you took just 10% of the assets of the Top 10%, leaving them with a paltry $83 Trillion, and redistributed it to the bottom 50% you would almost quadruple their wealth.  Isn't that you're stated goal?  To raise the basement?

If you see another way to accomplish your goal, I'm all ears, please enlighten me.

This is not "jealousy"...I, like most here, live a comfortable life.  It's an exercise of human value and the promotion of meritocracy.  

  Reveal hidden contents

image.thumb.png.15618a42a3468e2b6e8a31b79726e74e.png

Visualizing Wealth Distribution in America (1990-2023) (visualcapitalist.com)

Well, but you’ve just done a bait and switch from a deontological argument (it’s morally wrong to allow massive wealth accumulation) to a consequentialist one (it’s wrong to allow massive wealth accumulation because it leads to undesirable and unavoidable outcomes). I am not with you on the first but even said I am with you on the second in my post. 
 

I am fine—embrace even— taxation and redistribution of wealth to ensure that everyone can lead a dignified life and have the opportunity to flourish, innovate, and take risks.  I am not fine with simply pursuing some ratio of equality for its own sake because we have ample evidence that will end in disaster and because simply achieving an ideal equality ratio is no guarantee you get the things I do value— a dignified and flourishing life, etc. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Well, but you’ve just done a bait and switch from a deontological argument (it’s morally wrong to allow massive wealth accumulation) to a consequentialist one (it’s wrong to allow massive wealth accumulation because it leads to undesirable and unavoidable outcomes). I am not with you on the first but even said I am with you on the second in my post. 

Lol, at bait and switch...if there was a shift in position it is so negligible as to be nearly imperceptible.

I honestly don't see the pedantic distinction / point you're making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Lol, at bait and switch...if there was a shift in position it is so negligible as to be nearly imperceptible.

I honestly don't see the pedantic distinction / point you're making.

Put into practice it’s the pedantic distinction between East Germany and Norway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Put into practice it’s the pedantic distinction between East Germany and Norway. 

I think you've lost the plot, but I'm looking forward to your reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I think you've lost the plot, but I'm looking forward to your reasoning.

I’m sorry you’re not familiar with the long history of making policy to achieve defined and pragmatic outcomes vs. making policy to achieve ideological and moralistic outcomes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, sorry, I didn't realize we had a Nobel prize winning economist on Surly.

Please, Mr. Krugman, give us the high points of my "bait and switch" points of view, and what the ever-loving fuck they have to do with East Germany and Norway?  I don't see anything in my posts about State ownership of the means of production, but perhaps I missed typing it.

And while you're at it, why don't you grace us with your solution to income equality and how you plan to pay for it without, you know, money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Lol, sorry, I didn't realize we had a Nobel prize winning economist on Surly.

Please, Mr. Krugman, give us the high points of my "bait and switch" points of view, and what the ever-loving fuck they have to do with East Germany and Norway?  I don't see anything in my posts about State ownership of the means of production, but perhaps I missed typing it.

And while you're at it, why don't you grace us with your solution to income equality and how you plan to pay for it without, you know, money.

My solution is to increase taxes on the wealthy and use them to pay for things like house and food and education and medicine and pensions. Where did you get a different idea? 
  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

My solution is to increase taxes on the wealthy and use them to pay for things like house and food and education and medicine and pensions. Where did you get a different idea? 
  

Ok, you're fine with taxes on the ultra-wealthy on the backend...which is easy to game, but not ok with limiting income on the front end.  Is that a fair assessment?

Meaning you're fine with a non-founder CEO earning 344x the average FTE (note, not the lowest)...because you think he/she has somehow taken more risk than the average employee?  And he/she provides 344x the value as anyone else?  And further CEOs are 1,400% more valuable to a company today than they were 60 years ago?  

If so, I respectfully disagree.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Ok, you're fine with taxes on the ultra-wealthy on the backend...which is easy to game, but not ok with limiting income on the front end.  Is that a fair assessment?

Meaning you're fine with a non-founder CEO earning 344x the average FTE (note, not the lowest)...because you think he/she has somehow taken more risk than the average employee?  And he/she provides 344x the value as anyone else?  And further CEOs are 1,400% more valuable to a company today than they were 60 years ago?  

If so, I respectfully disagree.  

I do not give a shit about “fair” when it comes to wealth, I give a shit about quality of life for citizens and outcomes.  If tomorrow I could wave a wand, and 320 million Americans had the lifestyle and opportunities of someone who makes 500k per year while 10 million Americans made 1,000 percent more and all had diamond crusted shitters, I’d call that a win. 
 

I have a problem with rising CEO compensation only as it creates bad outcomes and not because of some idea of cosmic unfairness. I think we should try to calculate the cost of doing what we want to do to provide people with a dignified life and then go collect the taxes to pay for it because I don’t see how setting a “income limit” gets us there. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I do not give a shit about “fair” when it comes to wealth, I give a shit about quality of life for citizens and outcomes.  If tomorrow I could wave a wand, and 320 million Americans had the lifestyle and opportunities of someone who makes 500k per year while 10 million Americans made 1,000 percent more and all had diamond crusted shitters, I’d call that a win. 
 

I have a problem with rising CEO compensation only as it creates bad outcomes and not because of some idea of cosmic unfairness. I think we should try to calculate the cost of doing what we want to do to provide people with a dignified life and then go collect the taxes to pay for it because I don’t see how setting a “income limit” gets us there. 

You're insufferable in that you have no ethos...

"To the lucky go the spoils, but hey poor people, don't worry, we'll be sure to throw a couple crumbs your way, so you can live in a hut, and we don't have to step over you in the streets." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You're insufferable in that you have no ethos...

"To the lucky go the spoils, but hey poor people, don't worry, we'll be sure to throw a couple crumbs your way, so you can live in a hut, and we don't have to step over you in the streets." 

Lol, that’s what you got from “we should tax people so we have good housing and schools and medicine for everyone..” 

 

image.jpeg.a0d8ff9554c531122cf78041a5b0071e.jpeg

Edited by 956 Worldwide
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Lol, that’s what you got from “we should tax people so we have good housing and schools and medicine for everyone..” 

 

image.jpeg.a0d8ff9554c531122cf78041a5b0071e.jpeg

Yes, because you're against them sharing in the success of the companies they work for, so to me that means fuck you I got mine...but we'll tax your boss a little more and give it to people even poorer than you.

Our CEO makes 34x what I do, and I'm probably in the top 5% of earners at the company...do you really think taxing him an extra 5% is going to reduce inequality? 

Edited by DixonHur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Yes, because you're against them sharing in the success of the companies they work for, so to me that means fuck you I got mine...but we'll tax your boss a little more and give it to people even poorer than you.

I don’t consider good public education and better public healthcare “giving it to people poorer than me.”  I think that taxes for services and a social safety net is a fairly good model. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I checked taxes for schools were based on property taxes not income taxes... but wouldn't it also be nice if people earned a good wage?  Which would not only provide them with better living conditions, but also provide the government with more tax revenue from the higher wages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Last I checked taxes for schools were based on property taxes not income taxes... but wouldn't it also be nice if people earned a good wage?  Which would not only provide them with better living conditions, but also provide the government with more tax revenue from the higher wages?

Maybe while we are debating the direct transfer of assets from one class to another class, we could also debate different funding mechanisms for schools? Maybe we can talk about a wealth tax? 
 

CEO pay is outrageous but it’s way down the list of what needs to be done here— the problem is the singleminded pursuit of quarterly returns and shareholder value as opposed to long-term health and viability of companies where workforce is a stakeholder as well. Implementing some sort of upper income cap doesn’t fix that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

My only point is that the right or ability to pass down wealth or property has been at best conditional throughout most of history.

The unfettered right to devise wealth or property is a relatively recent development, although it has attained almost "human right" status in that it seems to be a feature of most post-medieval societies that are regarded as advanced (whether they actually are or not).

So, maybe it shouldn't be regarded as something sacrosanct.

Nevertheless, as Captainant elucidated, it may be better to tax/confiscate that wealth before it accumulates to better keep the assets productive for anyone except the owner.

the_gods_must_be_crazy_still3.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just came back from my kids baseball game.   It had me thinking about what I have observed in games and from parents/coaches over the years.  Faking kids ages, gaming the team drafts, poor sportsmanship (refusing to sub when up 20-2 in a t-ball game) and parents getting a little psycho.   I wonder if this isn't just a sports issue, but if some people are hypercompetitive and stressing the shit out of their kids not just on the field but off.  

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Just came back from my kids baseball game.   It had me thinking about what I have observed in games and from parents/coaches over the years.  Faking kids ages, gaming the team drafts, poor sportsmanship (refusing to sub when up 20-2 in a t-ball game) and parents getting a little psycho.   I wonder if this isn't just a sports issue, but if some people are hypercompetitive and stressing the shit out of their kids not just on the field but off.  

This is standard behavior. Watch The Bad News Bears movie and the shitty adult behavior we see today was present in that movie nearly 50 years ago.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

the problem is the singleminded pursuit of quarterly returns and shareholder value as opposed to long-term health and viability of companies where workforce is a stakeholder as well.

bing-bingo.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, F250 said:

This is standard behavior. Watch The Bad News Bears movie and the shitty adult behavior we see today was present in that movie nearly 50 years ago.

This thread makes me think of another old movie.  A good majority of the posters sound like they watched  Oliver Stone's Wall Street, yet act as if these concepts and class warfare just happened recently.  It was released in 1987.

Nobody has a shot, except those who do.  It's fucking weird.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Iceman said:

This thread makes me think of another old movie.  A good majority of the posters sound like they watched  Oliver Stone's Wall Street, yet act as if these concepts and class warfare just happened recently.  It was released in 1987.

Nobody has a shot, except those who do.  It's fucking weird.

More to the point, I think that flavor of capitalism is what inevitably leads to our current state of being that's being discussed. We're more than four decades down that road of decoupling company market value from the actual value that it produces, and we are still suffering the Jack Welch flavor of "shareholder first" business models. The end result is that if you're a wage earner, keeping your job and career stability is more a function of the arbitrary market than it is the actual work you've done. 

Hell, last year Google had it's most profitable quarter EVER and paid out it's first dividend while buying back $70,000,000,000 of shares. They were incredibly profitable and did extremely well - their workers should have some breathing room, right? WRONG! 12,000 layoffs sucka, BYAHH!

There's no reason for that sort of avarice and class warfare to inflict pain on their wage earners just to move the line up a tick next quarter for their investors. It's downright abusive 

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The google comment is perfect.  Mean, bad google* had lay offs, but  how many folks left google on their own accord?  Was google's hiring at zero?

How dare they target inefficiencies within their organization.  Those folks are entitled to lifetime employment by your rationale.

We both know that notion is asinine and ludicrous.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd still posit that redefining/ absolute destruction of the family is the key to unhappiness in our society.

Namely, fathers and raising their children. Then add in the lackadaisical parenting/ bullshit accountability at all levels of the household.

Let's blame CEOs though.  There's accountability we can control at the grass roots level in those grievances right?

The crying/bitching/moaning is easier than putting in the work- and that has zero to do with the workplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Iceman said:

The google comment is perfect.  Mean, bad google* had lay offs, but  how many folks left google on their own accord?  Was google's hiring at zero?

How dare they target inefficiencies within their organization.  Those folks are entitled to lifetime employment by your rationale.

We both know that notion is asinine and ludicrous.

You are both misrepresenting and overstating what I'm saying. Nobody is entitled to lifetime employment, but if you do good work under poor management why do the workers get cut and the management gets a bonus?

Big companies don't target inefficiencies - they tend to focus on IC's and not the short sighted decision making that's typically driven by their BOD from the investors. 

34 minutes ago, Iceman said:

I'd still posit that redefining/ absolute destruction of the family is the key to unhappiness in our society.

Namely, fathers and raising their children. Then add in the lackadaisical parenting/ bullshit accountability at all levels of the household.

It's crazy how you don't see the two are connected. Parents have more expectations on them from employers than ever, and it's not uncommon for one or both parents to be working more than one job just to make ends meet. 

There's no more stability in employment anymore. That is largely driven by the pathological need to post indefinite quarterly growth driving worker layoffs and conversion into contract employees. 

 

And it's not like I'm trying to write policy here. I'm discussing why the kids be unhappy, yo. Weird of you to aggressively move the goalposts when employer fuckery comes up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

the problem is the singleminded pursuit of quarterly returns and shareholder value as opposed to long-term health and viability of companies where workforce is a stakeholder as well. Implementing some sort of upper income cap doesn’t fix that. 

Milton Friedman single handedly ruined the business model with shareholder theory. He sucks, his monetarist theory sucks, and anyone pushing his bullshit sucks. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

I'd still posit that redefining/ absolute destruction of the family is the key to unhappiness in our society.

Namely, fathers and raising their children. Then add in the lackadaisical parenting/ bullshit accountability at all levels of the household.

Let's blame CEOs though.  There's accountability we can control at the grass roots level in those grievances right?

The crying/bitching/moaning is easier than putting in the work- and that has zero to do with the workplace.

Dude they just laid off core team stuff. Like the people who work in python etc. they aren’t cutting dead weight new hire morons from over hiring. They are cutting off primary function funding and doing share buybacks. 

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

I'd still posit that redefining/ absolute destruction of the family is the key to unhappiness in our society.

Namely, fathers and raising their children. Then add in the lackadaisical parenting/ bullshit accountability at all levels of the household.

Let's blame CEOs though.  There's accountability we can control at the grass roots level in those grievances right?

The crying/bitching/moaning is easier than putting in the work- and that has zero to do with the workplace.

Dude they just laid off core team stuff. Like the people who work in python etc. they aren’t cutting dead weight new hire morons from over hiring. They are cutting off primary function funding and doing share buybacks. 

On top of this they have not given raises or compensation adjustments for killer performance for the teams that did an excellent job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, F250 said:

This is standard behavior. Watch The Bad News Bears movie and the shitty adult behavior we see today was present in that movie nearly 50 years ago.

I suppose.    We were at one neighborhood rec league and it was really bad and then moved to a different league and it really seemed like most people were in it for the right reasons.   This season, it seems nearly half of the teams I watched were infected with absurd parent/coaches.   Seeing bad form in batters wasn't really addressed.   Far too much focus on results than skill building and the best part was most of the kids didn't really give a fuck if they won or lost, year after year, I see the same thing.   Am I wrong to think different sports will have different crowds?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Milton Friedman single handedly ruined the business model with shareholder theory. He sucks, his monetarist theory sucks, and anyone pushing his bullshit sucks. 

Probably totally unrelated, and totally coincidentally (sarcasm for those who have their meters turned off)...average CEO pay has increased about 1,400% since he put forth this theory.

The Two Decades That Created Our World’s First Mass Middle Class - Inequality.org

Quote

Back in 1982, in the early stages of that redistribution, Forbes began publishing an annual compilation of the nation’s 400 grandest private fortunes. The initial Forbes 400 list included just 13 billionaires. Their combined wealth: $92 billion. Over the next four decades, Forbes notes, the combined net worth of America’s richest 400 would rise to “a staggering $4.5 trillion — making them nearly 50 times better off than their 1982 counterparts, far outpacing the consumer price index’s near tripling.”

This is within most of our lifetimes, but...

2DN5un1lj-BY993_VHDghln558WR4JNGokGOwVyT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

I suppose.    We were at one neighborhood rec league and it was really bad and then moved to a different league and it really seemed like most people were in it for the right reasons.   This season, it seems nearly half of the teams I watched were infected with absurd parent/coaches.   Seeing bad form in batters wasn't really addressed.   Far too much focus on results than skill building and the best part was most of the kids didn't really give a fuck if they won or lost, year after year, I see the same thing.   Am I wrong to think different sports will have different crowds?  

It's been my experience that it's the youth leagues/orgs that have different crowds and not the sport regarding team sports. I've seen the range of apathy to hypercompetitiveness across youth baseball, football, basketball depending on the league/org.

Individual sports tend to be really good about development but lean towards hypercompetitiveness.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, F250 said:

It's been my experience that it's the youth leagues/orgs that have different crowds and not the sport regarding team sports. I've seen the range of apathy to hypercompetitiveness across youth baseball, football, basketball depending on the league/org.

Individual sports tend to be really good about development but lean towards hypercompetitiveness.

Maybe we need to return to the 70's and 80's when parents didn't give a shit.  I remember my games being sparsely attended by parents.  Usually, they rotated who HAD to take us to the games and we'd all pile into the back of one of their station wagons.  From 6th grade through HS I think my parents attended about a dozen or so of my games.

Some parents went to all their kid's games, but they usually were the ones who took it way too seriously and their kids hated having them there.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Maybe we need to return to the 70's and 80's when parents didn't give a shit.  I remember my games being sparsely attended by parents.  Usually, they rotated who HAD to take us to the games and we'd all pile into the back of one of their station wagons.  From 6th grade through HS I think my parents attended about a dozen or so of my games.

Some parents went to all their kid's games, but they usually were the ones who took it way too seriously and their kids hated having them there.

Yeah, youth games were not heavily attended by parents back in the 80s.

I remember going to my oldest son's first school football game when he was a 7th grader. In my mind, I was expecting it to be like my middle school football games. I was expecting about a dozen dads standing around and maybe a handful of students.

I was wrong. I walked into a mini-stadium that was at capacity. There was an announcer, cheerleaders, band music and a half-time show for 7th grade football, which is the oddest level of football.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, F250 said:

Yeah, youth games were not heavily attended by parents back in the 80s.

I remember going to my oldest son's first school football game when he was a 7th grader. In my mind, I was expecting it to be like my middle school football games. I was expecting about a dozen dads standing around and maybe a handful of students.

I was wrong. I walked into a mini-stadium that was at capacity. There was an announcer, cheerleaders, band music and a half-time show for 7th grade football, which is the oddest level of football.

I went to a middle school game at Greenhill and it was the same way and I was wearing gym shorts and a paint stained tee shirt, thinking it would be unemployed alcoholics and some housewives for a 5pm weekday game for 12 and 13 year olds whose helmets are bigger than their bodies. It was like my Varsity days from a stupid public high school.

Edited by BeardIP
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2024 at 4:21 PM, DixonHur said:

Here are the issues I have with this view...mind you, I respect your right to have it, I just don't agree.

You say you want to raise the floor, not correct ratios.  Ok, how?  You can't raise the floor without money and that money is tied up in the hands of the elite...and outside a relatively few generous billionaires planning to donate after death, they've shown zero signs of giving up that wealth to help raise the floor.

The Top 1% hold 30% or America's wealth...the Top 10% gets you to nearly 70%....whereas the bottom 50% hold just 2.5% of the wealth.  That means the Top 10% hold $92 Trillion in assets, while the bottom 50% have about $3.4 Trillion.  And it's not getting better (see image below spoilered due to ssize)

In other words, if you took just 10% of the assets of the Top 10%, leaving them with a paltry $83 Trillion, and redistributed it to the bottom 50% you would almost quadruple their wealth.  Isn't that you're stated goal?  To raise the basement?

If you see another way to accomplish your goal, I'm all ears, please enlighten me.

This is not "jealousy"...I, like most here, live a comfortable life.  It's an exercise of human value and the promotion of meritocracy.  

  Reveal hidden contents

image.thumb.png.15618a42a3468e2b6e8a31b79726e74e.png

Visualizing Wealth Distribution in America (1990-2023) (visualcapitalist.com)

Is this is a one time re-distribution?  Cut a a $54,000 check to 165 million people?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Is this is a one time re-distribution?  Cut a a $54,000 check to 165 million people?

Nope.  It would be going forward...I don't believe in going backwards to correct mistakes of the past.  

So, CEO pay gets slashed and the median income goes up.  The rich are still rich, just not grotesquely so...and the lower-level employees get to keep more of the money made from their toils.

Take McDonalds for example...the CEO makes about $20m per year on average.  Last year it was $19.2m...or $9,231/hour (using the standard 2,080 hours per year)...the average McDonalds "crew member", in Austin, makes $14/hour.  

I just don't think that's right.  Should he make more than a someone working a register or making fries?  Of course, he is more highly educated, has more responsibility, etc... but 660x more?  He makes more in 3 hours than these people make in a year...that should anger everyone.

That and no heir can receive more than, say, $10 million, aside from a surviving spouse.  This still puts the heir in the Top 1% in the US, and for those of us with less than $10 million in net worth there is zero change to the current inheritance rules.

But it promotes more equality of opportunity and slows the current trend toward aristocracy.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Nope.  It would be going forward...I don't believe in going backwards to correct mistakes of the past.  

 

I'm referring to your stated goal of taking 10% of the assets from the top 10% and redistributing to the bottom 50%.  Do you plan on taking 10% of their assets once or every year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I'm referring to your stated goal of taking 10% of the assets from the top 10% and redistributing to the bottom 50%.  Do you plan on taking 10% of their assets once or every year?

Oh.  That wasn't my "stated goal", I was responding to his stated goal of raising the floor...I was just using 10% for illustrative purposes.  It was meant to put into perspective just how much wealth is held by the top.

And I mean "held", in the literal sense...that shit ain't trickling down.

Edited by DixonHur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2024 at 3:29 PM, DixonHur said:

but I think things like golden toilets, 50-carat diamond rings, a fleet of private jets, 400 ft yachts, a warehouse full of classic cars, etc. is a sign of something more sinister.  It's wasteful, and basically a fuck you to the rest of the world. 

I don't disagree, but that's my personal morality.  While, yes, how one consumes has external effects, by and large, one's personal "sins" don't affect me.  If he wants to use his money to produce and watch endless chimpanzee porn, I find that twisted and sick, but as long as no chimps are harmed in the making of "Naughty Bedtime for Bonzo," I really don't care.

If I had Elon money, I'd be much more focused on doing actual good with it - if I had absolute "fuck you" money, my main splurges would be private aircraft/first-class travel everywhere (probably first-class, it's more environmentally friendly to fly with others), nice hotels, nice meals, fishing charters, etc.  I'm not a big car guy.  I think that ostentatious displays of wealth are just that.  But that's me.  If you've always dreamed of shitting in a solid gold toilet, I'm not gonna squash your dream.

Capitalism per se isn't bad, it can be quite good.

Driving per se isn't bad, it can be quite good.

Unfettered, unregulated driving with zero concern for and utter contempt of everyone else out there is bad.  If you construct a giant bro-dozer and just run everyone else over, and go 100 mph through school zones, that's bad.  We need rules and regulations to keep any good thing from being abused.  Capitalism is no different.  That's why people keep using the term "late stage capitalism."  Just as communism has huge weaknesses that let it be gamed so that it functions in a way to fuck people over instead of creating any utopia, so capitalism has weaknesses.  It can be exploited by people acting in bad-faith to further stack and skew the rules and odds in their favor, creating more and more divergent outcomes, to the point of creating oligarchs.  Oligarchs are bad.  Whether they stole the money (Putin's pals) or "earned" it by exploiting a system that they and theirs helped game, or even if they earned it fair and square.  "I have enough money to control a country/the world" is generally not good for everyone else.

Our kids see that.  They also see non-oligarchs willing to fucking beat and gas kids to keep them from even saying "hey....maybe having oligarchs is bad for us."  It's not just cruel and pointless, it's stupid and nonsensical.  Oligarchs are bad enough.  Masses willing to fight to protect oligarchs ("billionaire defended") is inexplicably bad. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, F250 said:

Yeah, youth games were not heavily attended by parents back in the 80s.

I remember going to my oldest son's first school football game when he was a 7th grader. In my mind, I was expecting it to be like my middle school football games. I was expecting about a dozen dads standing around and maybe a handful of students.

I was wrong. I walked into a mini-stadium that was at capacity. There was an announcer, cheerleaders, band music and a half-time show for 7th grade football, which is the oddest level of football.

I coached my sons T-Ball team in the late 90's. For the first Coach's meeting, they brought in the Coach from the High School; "This is the way we teach at the HS level, and this is the way we want you to teach."

Kids are picking daisy's in the outfield, and we're supposed to turn a 6 year old into Tony Gwynn?

Yeah, the Turf Bowl in Rhodes Stadium for Katy Youth Football was kinda' a big deal.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't disagree, but that's my personal morality.  While, yes, how one consumes has external effects, by and large, one's personal "sins" don't affect me.  If he wants to use his money to produce and watch endless chimpanzee porn, I find that twisted and sick, but as long as no chimps are harmed in the making of "Naughty Bedtime for Bonzo," I really don't care.

If I had Elon money, I'd be much more focused on doing actual good with it - if I had absolute "fuck you" money, my main splurges would be private aircraft/first-class travel everywhere (probably first-class, it's more environmentally friendly to fly with others), nice hotels, nice meals, fishing charters, etc.  I'm not a big car guy.  I think that ostentatious displays of wealth are just that.  But that's me.  If you've always dreamed of shitting in a solid gold toilet, I'm not gonna squash your dream.

Capitalism per se isn't bad, it can be quite good.

Driving per se isn't bad, it can be quite good.

Unfettered, unregulated driving with zero concern for and utter contempt of everyone else out there is bad.  If you construct a giant bro-dozer and just run everyone else over, and go 100 mph through school zones, that's bad.  We need rules and regulations to keep any good thing from being abused.  Capitalism is no different.  That's why people keep using the term "late stage capitalism."  Just as communism has huge weaknesses that let it be gamed so that it functions in a way to fuck people over instead of creating any utopia, so capitalism has weaknesses.  It can be exploited by people acting in bad-faith to further stack and skew the rules and odds in their favor, creating more and more divergent outcomes, to the point of creating oligarchs.  Oligarchs are bad.  Whether they stole the money (Putin's pals) or "earned" it by exploiting a system that they and theirs helped game, or even if they earned it fair and square.  "I have enough money to control a country/the world" is generally not good for everyone else.

Our kids see that.  They also see non-oligarchs willing to fucking beat and gas kids to keep them from even saying "hey....maybe having oligarchs is bad for us."  It's not just cruel and pointless, it's stupid and nonsensical.  Oligarchs are bad enough.  Masses willing to fight to protect oligarchs ("billionaire defended") is inexplicably bad. 

I'm not a full-blown stoic, so I have no problem with how people spend their money per se.  But I think we've reached, or more to the point, exceeded, the point in which the gap between the haves and have nots isn't healthy.  

And I'm tired to people (not you) assuming the only two options are the current form of capitalism or communism.

I think there has to be a better way, and I think the 50's and 60's are good examples of how things could be...setting aside the white male only aspects.  I hold the Obama, "you didn't build that" by yourself mentality. 

I'd rather see a form of capitalism in which everyone participates in the successes of the companies they work for, not just the C-suite.  Would companies have lower profit margins?  Absolutely, but if you can't pay your employees a decent wage, then perhaps your business isn't viable in the first place.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DixonHur said:

I'm not a full-blown stoic, so I have no problem with how people spend their money per se.  But I think we've reached, or more to the point, exceeded, the point in which the gap between the haves and have nots isn't healthy.  

And I'm tired to people (not you) assuming the only two options are the current form of capitalism or communism.

I think there has to be a better way, and I think the 50's and 60's are good examples of how things could be...setting aside the white male only aspects.  I hold the Obama, "you didn't build that" by yourself mentality. 

I'd rather see a form of capitalism in which everyone participates in the successes of the companies they work for, not just the C-suite.  Would companies have lower profit margins?  Absolutely, but if you can't pay your employees a decent wage, then perhaps your business isn't viable in the first place.  

To capture the goal in a pithy term, "a rising tide lifts all boats."  That's the way it should be.  Understanding that there will be some disproportionality to that -- if the low-end worker is making $50k, and the CEO is making $1 million, then a 10% increase in financial performance is going to mean a mere $5k more to the lower worker, and $100k to the CEO.  I think that MOST people (outside of the raging socialist types, who certainly exist) are fine with that.

A big problem is that the rising tide of the last 40+ years hasn't lifted all boats in proportion.  The worker is making $50k...and has seen his real wages stagnate as productivity has shot up.  The CEO that was making $1 million is now making $20 million, and gets huge increases in compensation when productivity soars.

And yes, when as a society we did things like invest in our education system, our infrastructure, our universities, and the people attending them, we yielded healthy dividends.  We HAVE to get away from our current spike of toxic individualism (how DARE you say I didn't earn every dollar myself, man-against-the-wilderness, I had no help at all!....except a system that has a rule of law so I could enforce my contract to get paid, except for the education I got from good public schools and universities that equipped me to succeed, except for the transportation system that allows me to get my goods to market reliably and at a low cost, etc. etc. etc.) and recapture some sense of the commonwealth/the common good.  We all do better when we all do better.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...