People Power

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

13th December 2011, 15:44
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by race aficionado

I'll play:

Exactly. So without further investigation (it may be in Arrows links, but I didn't find it) into the root causes of why social mobility is lower in certain countries/regions the assertion that wealth inequality prohibits social mobility is equally as valid as a lack of social mobility causes wealth inequality. Or an equally valid proposition could be that the two are not related at all, it could be just a coincidence that the two appear to be related.
13th December 2011, 15:53
ArrowsFA1
Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Correlation is not causation. Do you not understand that concept?

Yes thanks. The Equality Trust haven't claimed that they provide evidence which points the finger of blame. They're simply evidencing inequality where it exists and that greater equality is better for all. That, it would seem, is generally accepted.

What is your causation theory? WHY has inequality increased?

Is it:
1. a natural by-product of the free market (benefits will trickle down)[/*:m:38rmuqfi]
2. a product of lazy people at the bottom of the ladder expecting something for nothing[/*:m:38rmuqfi]
3. a product of those hard workers at the top of the ladder rewarding themselves[/*:m:38rmuqfi]
4. something else[/*:m:38rmuqfi]
13th December 2011, 16:28
chuck34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Yes thanks. The Equality Trust haven't claimed that they provide evidence which points the finger of blame. They're simply evidencing inequality where it exists and that greater equality is better for all. That, it would seem, is generally accepted.

What is your causation theory? WHY has inequality increased?

Is it:

a natural by-product of the free market (benefits will trickle down)[/*:m:1xich1ac]
a product of lazy people at the bottom of the ladder expecting something for nothing[/*:m:1xich1ac]
a product of those hard workers at the top of the ladder rewarding themselves[/*:m:1xich1ac]
something else[/*:m:1xich1ac]
I would say that it is a combination of all of those factors. I would also add another possibilty. That people on the "low" end of the scale have become complaicent. The poor people of today (at least in developed countires) are pretty well off. They have air conditioning, at least one car, cable/satalite TV, etc. So they do not see the need to work harder/longer just to get richer.

Now what is your causation theory? WHY does an increase in inequality mean there is less social mobilty?
13th December 2011, 16:56
ArrowsFA1

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

WHY does an increase in inequality mean there is less social mobilty?

Access to resources, whether that be money, health, education, employment. As those resources become concentrated in fewer hands then they become less accessible.
13th December 2011, 17:32
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Access to resources, whether that be money, health, education, employment. As those resources become concentrated in fewer hands then they become less accessible.

How's that? If 50 years ago a rich guy has 50x more than I do, and now he has 200x more than I do, why was it easier to "get ahead" 50 years ago than it is now?
13th December 2011, 17:38
lata123

Android is unlike any other mobile development platform or Java-based environment. *Triple Bottom Line’s Android webinar *will immerse students in the Android platform, leveraging their existing Java expertise, and allowing them to walk away from the class ready to build Android GUIs and related components.On the first class you will write your first Android Activities. Through the rest of the week you will be progressively introduced to more and more of what Android has to offer – services, multitouch, and system search services. You will apply this knowledge with working code every step of the way. Be ready to work hard and learn a lot in this intensive, hands-on, five day introduction to programming with the Android platform.
13th December 2011, 17:40
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Access to resources, whether that be money, health, education, employment. As those resources become concentrated in fewer hands then they become less accessible.

Let's be more specific on this.

Money ... As I asked before, do you believe economics to be a zero sum game? Do you believe that in order for someone to have $1 more that he/she must steal that dollar from someone else?

Health ... Is there more or less access to basic healthcare now than 50 years ago? How does someone having more money mean that someone else necessarily has less access to healthcare?

Education ... Are there more people going to college now than 50 years ago? Are there more people graduating high school now or then?

Employment ... Yes we are in a recession now so the numbers will be skewed a bit, but generally how does someone being x% wealthier than I am prevent me from obtaining a job?
13th December 2011, 18:51
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

No one has the right to anything, ANYTHING AT ALL!

Well well, I wonder who gave some of the posters around here the right to breath?
13th December 2011, 18:59
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Rollo, at least you are thinking ... a bit. Who exactly are these people protesting? Government, or private business?

That has been one of my points all along. I may actually agree with some of the things these protestors are talking about. But they are protesting the wrong people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I took a few days off to see where this would go. And to no great surprise, it's just gone in circles.

What do people want. Do you want someone (government, corporations, who?) to just give you a job? What exactly do you want? How do you realize a more "equal" society?

You should look at the big picture instead of trying to judged based on cherry picked details.

What if they are protesting both the government and the corporations?
What if they are protesting the system itself, a system built by the government and the corporations?
What if they are protesting the fact that the government, the lawmaker and the corporations are indistinguishable to the points where they have common interests that do not involve the well being of the masses?

I am just asking.
13th December 2011, 19:14
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

What if they are protesting both the government and the corporations?

When is Occupy Capital Hill scheduled for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

What if they are protesting the system itself, a system built by the government and the corporations?

Who controls said system? Government has the power, the gun of the tax system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

What if they are protesting the fact that the government, the lawmaker and the corporations are indistinguishable to the points where they have common interests that do not involve the well being of the masses?

Again, who has the power? If the Congresscritters would stand up to these corporations, and tell them to go fly a kite, no one could stop them from doing so, and the voting public would be behind them 100% so they wouldn't have to worry about re-elections, and corporate money etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

I am just asking.

I'm just saying the government (specifically, the people we put there) are the problem. Corporations are evil/greedy/SOB's no matter what the government does. So if the government allows them to peddle influence and get away with buying power, then they sure as heck will. The problem lies where the power is.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page