In article <
[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> >>> tom
> >>> that is a pile of half truths.
> >>> trump multiplied his father's money
> >>> and apparently had a helluva good time doing it.
> >>> the road is filled with ****ers driving new cars watching flatscreen
> >>> TV's and using cell phones to send their children to school while
> >>> eatin' five or six good meals a day.
> >>> what's your problem?
> >> I dislike being lied to. The propagandizing of the "American Dream" is a
> >> lie - for every "winner" there are multiple losers.
> >
> > Almost all of America's "losers" would be plutocrats in 5/6ths of the
> > world.
>
> Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to with the distribution of wealth and
> opportunity in the US. Let us stick to naturally colored herrings, eh?
Eppur si muove. How can you call the lower quintiles of American society
"losers" when by measures both objective (living space, food security,
personal amenities) and relative (on a global scale) they are doing
great? There are many exceptions, but in a nation of 300 million, the
great majority do great.
> > Let's see how much old money matters in American dreamers. Sam Walton:
> > son of dirt farmers. His father-in-law gave him a substantial loan to
> > help found his first store, so I guess he's from a family of privilege.
>
> A loan (adjusted for inflation of over $230,000 US), which is more than
> my total net income for the first eight years after obtaining a college
> degree (and I have been employed appropriately for my education the
> whole time).
It's the size of a condo mortgage in Vancouver. A big loan, but not a
ridiculous one, and more importantly, he was not alone in attracting
that.
> > Robert Lutz, high-level exec with GM: Bachelor's and MBA from Berkeley,
> > followed by 40 years in the auto industry.
>
> Background unknown?
I can't find any bio info on him, except for 4 years as a USMC aviator,
and then he worked his way up through the industry. At best, his family
background made sure he was able to attend college.
> > Jobs and Wozniak: found Apple Computer after Jobs sells his van and Woz
> > sells his HP calculator to raise the seed capital.
>
> A rare exception does not disprove the general trend. That a few hundred
> young black men and women from the impoverished inner cities become
> millionaires every year through the entertainment industry (which
> includes professional sports) is not an indicator of general opportunity
> for their class.
So we shall go macro below.
> > Warren Buffett: privilege seems to have amounted to a father who was a
> > stock broker and who told him to go to university.
>
> His father was also a member of Congress, which is the most exclusive
> club in the country. The congress-critters DO get rewarded with
> financially lucrative social connections.
So people who don't have lots of money may have alternate forms of
social power.
> > Bill Gates: finally! A proper child of privilege. And his co-founder,
> > Paul Allen, was the . . . son of an associate director of the UWash
> > libraries? Is that privileged or not?
>
> Mostly luck in that IBM paid Gates a lot of money for a rehashing of
> someone else's operating system. But again, as for Allen, how many
> people can make money by being in at the startup of a large
> multi-national corporation. It is of course, impossible for most of
> these ventures to rise to that level. Another exception which does not
> invalidate the general trend.
The point is that you questioned whether there really was economic
mobility in the US when you trashed Trump and Trump. Not that I'm
especially fond of Donald Trump, but there are way more
made-in-one-generation fortunes among the richest Americans than there
are children of wealthy families.
> >> Life is not fair, so please do not insult me by saying it is.
> >
> > The list goes on. There are plenty of children of privilege in positions
> > of power, but of the post-Kennedy presidents, only the father-son Bushes
> > came from families with any claim to dynastic privilege. Johnson, Nixon,
> > Ford, Reagan, Clinton: their upbringings are a litany of broken homes,
> > modest means, and rural roots.
>
> If one is willing to accept the moral compromise necessary to be a
> politician in the US? However, note that these politicians are merely
> the overseers of the proletariat, working for capital. They are
> servants, not masters.
Now I get it! So if you make it big in America from nothing, it's
because you're a puppet of Old Money? Or political office may only be
achieved by the morally compromised? These arguments are too ridiculous
to address.
> > We're not saying life is fair. But Gene is right: Trump took a
> > fair-sized fortune and increased its size. Don't hold it against him.
> > The combination of social and economic mobility in the US is probably
> > both unequalled and unprecedented, excepting maybe countries in
> > mid-revolution.
>
> Hold it against Trump? Just do not tell me that either Donald or Ivanka
> Trump are exemplars of achievements, when the deck was so stacked in
> their favor at birth. Being born on home plate is not the same as
> hitting a home run.
>
> > "A 1996 Urban Institute study showed that large numbers of Americans
> > move into a new income quintile, with estimates ranging from 25 percent
> > to 40 percent in a single year. The same study found even higher
> > mobility rates over longer periods: about 45 percent over five years and
> > 60 percent over 9-year and 17-year periods."
> >
> > "2000 Economic Policy Institute study showed that almost 60 percent of
> > Americans in the lowest income quintile in 1969 were in a higher
> > quintile in 1996, and over 61 percent in the highest income quintile had
> > moved down into a lower income quintile during the same period."
>
> Retirement?
?!?!!?! The majority of "poor" people in the late 1960s became people
whose income status (not the proper technical term, I know, but I'm
grasping for something which reflects the fact that this is their
ranking, rather than absolute dollars) improved substantially.
Over a typical working lifespan, most people's income status changes,
which suggests a lot of economic mobility, not a little.
> > <http://blog.cleveland.com/wideopen/2007/10/weekend_blast_from_the_past_i
> > n.html>
> >
> > Not an especially well-referenced post (some googling may be necessary
> > to get the original posts), but I think it's a start.
>
> Quintiles are too gross of a measurement, as the real wealth is
> concentrated in the hands of 0.1% of the population. As these people run
> the government, they lump themselves in with the upper middle class in
> government data to camouflage their lion's share taking of the national
> wealth.
Okay Tom, this is an actually answerable question: what proportion of
American wealth is possessed by the top 0.1%? While you're at it, what
proportion of all taxes do they pay? I happened to stumble across
something like the latter figure the other day.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/the-rich-pay
-fo.html
The top 1% pay 27.6% of all federal tax revenue. The top quintile pays
68.7% of all income taxes. It's good to have rich people around: they
pick up the cheque.
> > ObBike: my substantial use of a bicycle as a commuter tool has paid
> > itself back in both quality of life and financial savings (versus
> > driving). the Sports Junkies Boxing Day sale provided me with a quite
> > acceptable set of road wheels for $40, and two sets of NiCad-powered
> > lights for $50.
>
> This is only an option if you are not expected to provide a personal
> vehicle for work transportation.
Yes. I also don't eat fast food very often. That's only an option if I
exercise some personal self-control. I also like to drink beer. That's
only an option if I don't subscribe to the LDS church or Islam.
What proportion, Tom, of American jobs require the employee to provide a
car? There are some, but not a majority, and most of those compensate
you for the expense.
But you are attempting to riposte me with non sequiturs, while I am
offering you both specific examples of the many examples of social and
economic mobility, many coming not just among the rich, but among the
richest, and I have offered the macro data that says that the relative
income of Americans is especially fluid.
Obbike: even the bikes at department stores are surprisingly rideable
these days, at least if they are assembled properly. Only the worst and
cheapest models (if any) still have steel rims; cheap-but-effective
V-brakes on alloy rims are the base standard now.
--
Ryan Cousineau
[email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
