The way forward in our country causing income inequality

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
13,812
2,037
1,743
So Cal
And be awesome instead.
be motivated, might be a better description

be motivated to be educated or learn a skill might help too.

removing restrictions and barriers to union apprenticeships might be a good start... eliminating "licenses" for non life threatening occupations (hair dressers, etc.) might help too... lot's of things could be done besides worrying about how much somebody else is making from their accomplishments.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,134
8,059
1,743
Seriously!

Embarrasing but true, I shot my 410 shotgun that my grandad gave me a few times as a kid. I shot multiple weapons as an infantry soldier quite a long time ago. But, living in the land of kumbaya outlawed pepper spray, slingshots, and most guns, I am completely out of it now.*
Having someone that knows WTH they are doing take me would be awesome. If you are serious, I am stoked. And yea, beers on me (afterwards, of course).


*But, one of the docs I work with has land in the outback and my going away is a bunch of us going out there to "work." So, my final work might be ridding Australia of a few feral hogs or foxes.

Apologies to all others so off-topic.
Hell yeah I’m serious! I always enjoy sharing some range time. Hate going by myself. I’ve got a decent selection for you to enjoy as well.

Pistols (9mm and .45acp)
Couple AR-15s
And a lever action Winchester 30-30 cowboy rifle (my fave).

I’m sure we can make it happen.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,951
30,469
1,743
Australia
removing restrictions and barriers to union apprenticeships might be a good start... eliminating "licenses" for non life threatening occupations (hair dressers, etc.) might help too... lot's of things could be done besides worrying about how much somebody else is making from their accomplishments.
Gee, those sound like maybe good ideas. As you said, they might help. But, it would take a huge change in course of action to do that, and people aren't going to be for change just for change sake.

If only someone could look into this and show that it is a reason that incomes for certain people have been climbing while others have not. Nah, it is un-American to even ask that question, it would be un-American to know that. Only a Marxist would want to know that.:rolleyes:
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,528
1,295
1,743
If only someone could look into this and show that it is a reason that incomes for certain people have been climbing while others have not. Nah, it is un-American to even ask that question, it would be un-American to know that. Only a Marxist would want to know that.:rolleyes:
Income inequality by itself is not a problem. If we lived in a land where the top earners made $1 billion and average worker wage was $1 million then I hope we all agree that shouldn’t be a problem. Unless you bring in envy.

We live in a land where incomes for the top have risen sharply and incomes of low income households have risen as well, but only slightly (but there buying power has increased).. However, the conveniences that today’s households have, including lower income households, are way advanced than just decades ago. So if income inequality is viewed as worse than yesteryear, then the problem is an envy problem.

I am not at all saying that lower income families should not have help and assistance. But I disagreee that the increased income inequality is more of the “problem”or creating more problems than in the past.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,332
2,056
743
Where else but Stillwater
Income inequality by itself is not a problem. If we lived in a land where the top earners made $1 billion and average worker wage was $1 million then I hope we all agree that shouldn’t be a problem. Unless you bring in envy.

We live in a land where incomes for the top have risen sharply and incomes of low income households have risen as well, but only slightly (but there buying power has increased).. However, the conveniences that today’s households have, including lower income households, are way advanced than just decades ago. So if income inequality is viewed as worse than yesteryear, then the problem is an envy problem.

I am not at all saying that lower income families should not have help and assistance. But I disagreee that the increased income inequality is more of the “problem”or creating more problems than in the past.
But of number of homes still rely on what was fairly common 50 years ago among low income, meaning refrigerated or evaporative air conditioning units in the windows and wall or floor furnaces for heating. You can still find older homes without automatic garage door openers. So you're wrong to some extent.
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,528
1,295
1,743
But of number of homes still rely on what was fairly common 50 years ago among low income, meaning refrigerated or evaporative air conditioning units in the windows and wall or floor furnaces for heating. You can still find older homes without automatic garage door openers. So you're wrong to some extent.
That would be a great counter argument .... if it is was remotely factual and not inaccurate.
But the percentage of central air conditioning in American households increased sharply from lower than 19% in early 1970s to nearly 75% now. And total AC in households from barely 50% in early 1970s to over 90% now.
http://www.freeby50.com/2011/08/percentage-of-homes-with-air.html
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
13,812
2,037
1,743
So Cal
If only someone could look into this and show that it is a reason that incomes for certain people have been climbing while others have not. Nah, it is un-American to even ask that question, it would be un-American to know that. Only a Marxist would want to know that.:rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with asking the question and looking into it, but to suggest "equality" simply ignores too many factors of desire, ability, and socieo economic conditions (single mom, etc.)

as the Eagles famously once said about the sad cafe of life - "I don't know why fortune smiles on some, and lets the rest go free"[/QUOTE]
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,951
30,469
1,743
Australia
Income inequality by itself is not a problem. If we lived in a land where the top earners made $1 billion and average worker wage was $1 million then I hope we all agree that shouldn’t be a problem. Unless you bring in envy.

We live in a land where incomes for the top have risen sharply and incomes of low income households have risen as well, but only slightly (but there buying power has increased).. However, the conveniences that today’s households have, including lower income households, are way advanced than just decades ago. So if income inequality is viewed as worse than yesteryear, then the problem is an envy problem.

I am not at all saying that lower income families should not have help and assistance. But I disagreee that the increased income inequality is more of the “problem”or creating more problems than in the past.
No matter why the incomes of the wealthy have risen faster, income inequality is not a problem as long as there has been some rise in the income of others?
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,528
1,295
1,743
No matter why the incomes of the wealthy have risen faster, income inequality is not a problem as long as there has been some rise in the income of others?
I don’t believe income inequality in itself is a problem.

If you are implying the reason incomes of the westhly have risen faster is due to corruption (as per you initial post), then I would say that assertion is incorrect.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,951
30,469
1,743
Australia
I don’t believe income inequality in itself is a problem.

If you are implying the reason incomes of the westhly have risen faster is due to corruption (as per you initial post), then I would say that assertion is incorrect.
Of course income inequality in itself is not a problem. Only an idiot would think that incomes should all be equal. That isn't really what I asked.
Why is that assertion incorrect? And, it wasn't an assertion, it was a postulation. Unlike you guys, I do not pretend to know.
All I am saying is that we should attempt to find out why there has been a significant change in relative wealth. Why would we not want to know why it is changing? Why does everyone argue the relative merit and declare it not a problem when there is no way to know if it is a problem or not?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
13,812
2,037
1,743
So Cal
Of course income inequality in itself is not a problem. Only an idiot would think that incomes should all be equal. That isn't really what I asked.
Why is that assertion incorrect? And, it wasn't an assertion, it was a postulation. Unlike you guys, I do not pretend to know.
All I am saying is that we should attempt to find out why there has been a significant change in relative wealth. Why would we not want to know why it is changing? Why does everyone argue the relative merit and declare it not a problem when there is no way to know if it is a problem or not?
I would suggest that we start the inquiry with the changes to define poverty that Obama implemented. No longer is poverty a flat baseline based on the cost of eating and sustaining oneself, it has become a floating scale based on how rich other people are - in essence eternally preventing us from ever being able to eliminate "poverty".

We have the richest poor people in the world.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124265274
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,528
1,295
1,743
Of course income inequality in itself is not a problem. Only an idiot would think that incomes should all be equal. That isn't really what I asked.
Why is that assertion incorrect? And, it wasn't an assertion, it was a postulation. Unlike you guys, I do not pretend to know.
All I am saying is that we should attempt to find out why there has been a significant change in relative wealth. Why would we not want to know why it is changing? Why does everyone argue the relative merit and declare it not a problem when there is no way to know if it is a problem or not?
You lost me there. If there is no way to know if income inequality is a problem .... why did you start this thread?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,951
30,469
1,743
Australia
You lost me there. If there is no way to know if income inequality is a problem .... why did you start this thread?
I'm not saying there is no way to find out. I'm saying there is no way to know without looking into it, as many here are advocating.

Here is an example:
Why have we had an opiate crisis right now. Some have said that the opiate crisis was due to economic conditions. The areas where the crisis was more severe occurred in areas that were economically depressed.
But this paper concluded that was not a major part of the issue. This is looking into an issue. Not starting with "I believe that" but actually looking at the issue.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w24188
Deaths of Despair or Drug Problems?
Christopher J. Ruhm
NBER Working Paper No. 24188
Issued in January 2018
NBER Program(s):Health Care, Health Economics, Public Economics
The United States is in the midst of a fatal drug epidemic. This study uses data from the Multiple Cause of Death Files to examine the extent to which increases in county-level drug mortality rates from 1999-2015 are due to “deaths of despair”, measured here by deterioration in medium-run economic conditions, or if they instead are more likely to reflect changes in the “drug environment” in ways that present differential risks to population subgroups. A primary finding is that counties experiencing relative economic decline did experience higher growth in drug mortality than those with more robust growth, but the relationship is weak and mostly explained by confounding factors. In the preferred estimates, changes in economic conditions account for less than one-tenth of the rise in drug and opioid-involved mortality rates. The contribution of economic factors is even less when accounting for plausible selection on unobservables, with even a small amount of remaining confounding factors being sufficient to entirely eliminate the relationship. These results suggest that the “deaths of despair” framing, while provocative, is unlikely to explain the main sources of the fatal drug epidemic and that efforts to improve economic conditions in distressed locations, while desirable for other reasons, are not likely to yield significant reductions in drug mortality. Conversely, the risk of drug deaths varies systematically over time across population subgroups in ways that are consistent with an important role for the public health environment related to the availability and cost of drugs. Put succinctly, the fatal overdose epidemic is likely to primarily reflect drug problems rather than deaths of despair.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,951
30,469
1,743
Australia
I would suggest that we start the inquiry with the changes to define poverty that Obama implemented. No longer is poverty a flat baseline based on the cost of eating and sustaining oneself, it has become a floating scale based on how rich other people are - in essence eternally preventing us from ever being able to eliminate "poverty".

We have the richest poor people in the world.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124265274
A separate but related issue. I agree we should not adjust goal posts can claim that a rate is increasing.
But, increasing income inequality is not just about poverty.
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,528
1,295
1,743
@steross , you had my interest with a video from John Stossel. He is, IMO, the best investigative TV journalist hands-down. His libertarian political views align very closely with mine. He is by far my favorite political journalist.

But your example is not at all showing income inequality. And I don’t see how income inequality is a problem if we are not talking about poverty. You’ve lost me in this thread - I am unclear what point you are trying to make.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,951
30,469
1,743
Australia
@steross , you had my interest with a video from John Stossel. He is, IMO, the best investigative TV journalist hands-down. His libertarian political views align very closely with mine. He is by far my favorite political journalist.

But your example is not at all showing income inequality. And I don’t see how income inequality is a problem if we are not talking about poverty. You’ve lost me in this thread - I am unclear what point you are trying to make.
You cannot see how government making decisions that benefit certain government-connected people to the detriment of others over time might lead to the increasing income inequality that we have seen? And, if that possibility is correct, you can't see that as a problem?

If you can't see it, you just don't want to see it.
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,528
1,295
1,743
You cannot see how government making decisions that benefit certain government-connected people to the detriment of others over time might lead to the increasing income inequality that we have seen? And, if that possibility is correct, you can't see that as a problem?

If you can't see it, you just don't want to see it.
Government makes bad decisions all the time. And there is no doubt too much corruption. But your video was potentially exposing corrupt government officials favoring a friend over another individual. Not an income inequality issue.

You have a lot of good ideas, but I think you missed on this one. But please continue to post Stossel videos, you will always capture my attention on those posts.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
13,812
2,037
1,743
So Cal
A separate but related issue. I agree we should not adjust goal posts can claim that a rate is increasing.
But, increasing income inequality is not just about poverty.
I don't know what "income inequality" is "just about", other than Marxism. It is about pitting one group of society against another... that's it. It's a political issue designed to make the politicians hero's to the "under privileged" by robbing from the rich who clearly do not deserve to have that much.

Almost all poverty (in the US) is because of decisions. Personal decisions. If a rich man goes broke, he'll find a way to make money again. If you give money to a poor person, almost all of the time they will be poor once again.

It has nothing to do really, with "income". There are far too many examples of athletes or rock/movie starts having riches heaped upon them, only to squander it all away and die poor.

Blaming the rich is nothing but a political ploy to get votes from people that want free stuff (Marxism)

If young people do not want to grow up to be poor in America, there are 3 simple steps that almost always lead to more success.

1) Finish high school.
2) Don't have a kid before age 20.
3) Get married first.