Inequality much worse than most think

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

You're surprised?

Can you for one moment put yourself in my position? Here I am enjoying a moment or two with my coffee at what just might be the most erudite and open minded forum in god's green Internet and I'm presented with this:

"What gives the government the right to tax..."

Now I expect from you the same commitment to rigor and evidence as you of me and in that way I do unto you as I wish done unto me. By deciding to engage with you, I have given you some of my meager social capital on what amounts to a form of trust. I consider that a fundamental expression of respect and it's basically the only "thing" I have to offer you.

I suppose what I mean to say is that you don't present as an ignorant person or some idler looking to burn a few moment's time. I suppose I was as disappointed as you seem to be.

I apologize if I've offended you. It takes time to learn the nuances of each person's communication. I make that mistake constantly when I forget that I'm chatting with a person that's spent years and years corresponding with other folks here with 5,000 or even 9,000 posts. That's not even mentioning the staggering depth and breadth of professional and life experience exhibited here daily. I cringe at the knowledge that my ego is still so big that I sometimes log on without remembering that. Talk about ignorant. And all for $40 a month, you know what I'm saying?

So forgive me for missing the log in my eye, jr. I'm sorry. I have to remember that in perceiving we're also doing a fair amount of projecting, and that goes the same for you and me.

But to your point. You're a practical person, aren't you? It's a statement of fact that within the context of the broadest definition of what any of us here may choose to define as "civilization," we've had to live with the taxman. I suppose we will give it up around the same time as we give up the concept of god.

Is it fair to say that we've lived with taxation at least as long as we've lived with the concept of wealth? "Death & Taxes?" Humbly and with a genuine smile on my face as I type, does the phrase ring familiar?

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

That is a particularly low blow considering the complete absence of your own justifications of your right to own. Though I can admire the sound tactical approach to force people to set up their arguments to defend while you proceed to attack them. However one cannot fail to bring something to the field entirely. Guard your flanks and use camouflage if you will , but you are in no position to criticize him because your attack is with an army of phantoms.

What supports the right to own?

So your family owns a stretch of beach on an island for centuries, your neighbors respect your ownership and then Spaniards come with their galleons and falconettes, claim ownership of the island, and pass 95% tax law and that's reasonable?

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

So your family owns a stretch of beach on an island for centuries, your neighbors respect your ownership and then Spaniards come with their galleons and falconettes, claim ownership of the island, and pass 95% tax law and that's reasonable?

That does not answer my question.

I repeat my question.

What justifies the reason to own?

....I sense the argument of the deepest latrine, but I was wondering what you are saying explicitly.


I can create equal absurdities on a principle just as easily by claiming North America by my native American ancestry and toss several hundred million off. Cannot I not?

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Who said $100k? The household income in Orange County is $80k or so, this would donate a spouse making $44k and another spouse making $36k. You mention educating children - well doesn't this necessitate a couple? And didn't you have college roommates? I sure as hell wasn't living on my own when my income was $20k/year. And BTW I'm almost certain you can find housing for less than $1500/month in Dallas - as of 2 years ago you were able to buy a new construction 5000sqft house for $250k so I don't know where you are coming from with your numbers..

I assume you didnt read what I wrote about carefully enough. I said 1500 for rent in a decent area and I am using Dallas, which as I also assume you have not been to.

If you want to rent anywhere near Uptown where all the young professionals live it is 1500+ for a one bedroom. The rent has skyrocketed the last 5 years.

I live just on the outskirts of Uptown on the "east side of Dallas" where many people refuse to live because you in a lot of areas you cant walk outside your apartment at least as a woman because many people have been raped/killed. Now I dont particularly buy into that thought process but most people would refuse to live there even though muggings/burglary happen in every area of town.

A few years ago a young SMU girl was raped in the morning hours while jogging here on the east side. I pay 1200 per month for rent and the rents are only increasing and that is living in a new apartment complex 5 years old.

Yea you can buy a new house for 250k that is 30 miles from downtown, who wants to live that far, pay those commuting costs, house costs/taxes/maintenance etc as a single person? Again the analysis is not rooted in reality.

So why do you think someone has the right to own an Iphone 5 or Cable TV or a new car just because their neighbor has one? You've touched on one of the core problems with America but you don't seen to recognize the cause - you shouldn't be buying a new car, buying that 65" LCD TV, and getting into a $100/month phone contract if you're only making only the median income. You and quite a few members on this forum are seriously confused with rights compared to luxuries. In today's America we have a tremendous amount of luxuries available to us and a prudent person chooses these luxuries carefully. A median income worker can certainly choose a luxury, whether it's an Ipad, Cable TV, a new car, steak 3 times a week, or $150 scotch. But the problem with Americans is that want it all - and this produces debt. Consuming luxuries is a priviledge and not a right. Most debt slaves create themselves. Some of the most highly indebted people I know are families clearing over $200k. And certainly the Federal Reserve and the FIRE economy has helped to make the bottom 90% poorer - but your premise that the system prevents wealth accumulation is wrong.

I know very few people who can resist the temptation to consume above their means at any income level. So we should just doom them all because they consume more than they produce by adding more debt on their balance sheet because that is what the propaganda machine/government has TOLD people to do for the better part of 40 years?

Again the antecedents are missing.

A generation of people have now come to believe this is the natural order of things, that they should have high debt levels, buy that 350k house, new car etc.

I am not saying it is right but I can tell you that few people can resist that temptation as evidence the last 30 years of US consumerism and IF they stopped doing what you suggest they do then the economy will collapse.

Guess you are stuck in a catch 22 huh? Your business would collapse if everyone suddenly decided to start living within their means and NOT accumulating debt.

But get ready because that scenario is coming out of crisis and not choice.

God forbid that someone making 40k a year would have at least one luxury like an iphone, we should forsake them to the gates of hades for even thinking such a thing!

I understand I am questioning the beliefs and idealogical premise you have accepted and believed your entire life and it doesnt sit well.

And I never said it was anyones right to have these things compared to being a luxury.

Do you not find it odd that in this country where someone makes 140k per bat in the major leagues is totally fine because of his "GREAT production" ahem cough Arod cough but society and you are railing against someone who only makes 30k a year owning an iphone as a freaking luxury?

I find the entire premise of your argument presposterous and obtuse.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

That does not answer my question.

I repeat my question.

What justifies the reason to own?

....I sense the argument of the deepest latrine, but I was wondering what you are saying explicitly.


I can create equal absurdities on a principle just as easily by claiming North America by my native American ancestry and toss several hundred million off. Cannot I not?

From my perspective it is as absurd or extreme as claiming the government is entitled to 100% of the revenue of said beach property because it is government that makes revenue possible. I am just pointing out the extreme counter example. I believe practicality lies somewhere in the middle. And I agree with your perception of where this argument is going.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

From my perspective it is as absurd or extreme as claiming the government is entitled to 100% of the revenue of said beach property because it is government that makes revenue possible. I am just pointing out the extreme counter example. I believe practicality lies somewhere in the middle. And I agree with your perception of where this argument is going.

What justifies the right to own?

....third time I have asked such a simple question.

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I can create equal absurdities on a principle just as easily by claiming North America by my native American ancestry and toss several hundred million off. Cannot I not?

It no claim, ke-mo-sa-bee.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

What justifies the right to own?

....third time I have asked such a simple question.

Based on this question I'm assuming you don't believe in the right to own? I do love debates but I'm not going to get into a philosophical argument of the "deepest latrine" at this time I'm already behind on my work for today . Yah it's a BS response but maybe next time?

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I'm curious why you think I'm interested in pushing up the threshold to the 1%. I'm not. I do like to understand the compensation of the American workforce and the wealth of American's for very selfish reasons but I'm not interested in distorting the 1%.

As for your allegiance to the poor, prodigal, and alienated that is a very admirable trait but it seems to be clouded by a distorted view of reality. You mention the nurse and school teacher. Here in California most nurses are very highly compensated. Starting is $60k which is above the median income and can reach over $100k based on seniority with nurse practitioners getting paid substantially more. As for school teachers the compensation is less - but throw in benefits and not having to work for 3 months out of the year it is not substantially so. And while the majority work hard to earn their comp there exists a good portion that just coast based on seniority. I would never characterize nurses or school teachers as poor and it's very both interesting and telling that you have done so.

As for "crushing poverty" I just don't see it. If you call what we are experiencing "crushing poverty" then I'm curious how you would describe conditions in the poorer places of the world. I agree that 90% of America is getting poorer due to our government (and QE) but poor is a relative term. The vast majority of Americans are still wealthy by global standards and those that were born into poverty and want to acquire wealth can still do so through hard work and perseverance.

I've been rich and I've been poor and rich again. I kept banging my head against the wall, I suppose, until at last I had enough of it and finally took time to understand what wealth meant to me and what exactly everybody meant by money. All I can say is that I did it with as much objectivity as I was capable. Which I presume by your standards isn't very much, jr. I can live with that. We do just fine and are grateful to know that there's enough for those we leave behind, if they're sensible.

So yes, all too guilty and all too telling. My view of reality is distorted, as you say. It's distorted by my life experience, by my present condition and by my anticipation of the future near and far. I suppose most fundamentally, by my perception of what my own life and quite timely death will mean. Just like you, jr.

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

You guys are right. It stinks around here.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I assume you didnt read what I wrote about carefully enough. I said 1500 for rent in a decent area and I am using Dallas, which as I also assume you have not been to.

If you want to rent anywhere near Uptown where all the young professionals live it is 1500+ for a one bedroom. The rent has skyrocketed the last 5 years.

I live just on the outskirts of Uptown on the "east side of Dallas" where many people refuse to live because you in a lot of areas you cant walk outside your apartment at least as a woman because many people have been raped/killed. Now I dont particularly buy into that thought process but most people would refuse to live there even though muggings/burglary happen in every area of town.

A few years ago a young SMU girl was raped in the morning hours while jogging here on the east side. I pay 1200 per month for rent and the rents are only increasing and that is living in a new apartment complex 5 years old.

Yea you can buy a new house for 250k that is 30 miles from downtown, who wants to live that far, pay those commuting costs, house costs/taxes/maintenance etc as a single person? Again the analysis is not rooted in reality.



I know very few people who can resist the temptation to consume above their means at any income level. So we should just doom them all because they consume more than they produce by adding more debt on their balance sheet because that is what the propaganda machine/government has TOLD people to do for the better part of 40 years?

Again the antecedents are missing.

A generation of people have now come to believe this is the natural order of things, that they should have high debt levels, buy that 350k house, new car etc.

I am not saying it is right but I can tell you that few people can resist that temptation as evidence the last 30 years of US consumerism and IF they stopped doing what you suggest they do then the economy will collapse.

Guess you are stuck in a catch 22 huh? Your business would collapse if everyone suddenly decided to start living within their means and NOT accumulating debt.

But get ready because that scenario is coming out of crisis and not choice.

God forbid that someone making 40k a year would have at least one luxury like an iphone, we should forsake them to the gates of hades for even thinking such a thing!

I understand I am questioning the beliefs and idealogical premise you have accepted and believed your entire life and it doesnt sit well.

And I never said it was anyones right to have these things compared to being a luxury.

Do you not find it odd that in this country where someone makes 140k per bat in the major leagues is totally fine because of his "GREAT production" ahem cough Arod cough but society and you are railing against someone who only makes 30k a year owning an iphone as a freaking luxury?

I find the entire premise of your argument presposterous and obtuse.

So you're living in downtown out of necessity, not because you want easy access to your friends, bars, and girls? Come on.

I think what's more preposterous here is that while you claim in a FIRE economy collapse my business will collapse (which it probably will) but that you earn a living in the financial services industry, unhappy with your success in the industry, yet continue to demonize the people in the industry.

In the bay area, California I lived off $1100/month my entire college career and my wife (gf at time) and I lived off $2500/month for years while working 100+ hour weeks to build our business. Your belief that Americans are unable to save and accumulate wealth through discipline and hardwork is simply incorrect.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Based on this question I'm assuming you don't believe in the right to own? I do love debates but I'm not going to get into a philosophical argument of the "deepest latrine" at this time I'm already behind on my work for today . Yah it's a BS response but maybe next time?

You were in the deepest latrine already with respect to your argument.

I assume that one's favorite color is in the visible spectrum, and I also assume that any other answer than red, blue or none is a refusal to answer. So be it.


And no you are not right to assume the false dichotomy:


Again you cannot both fail to state a position, and then to use well known fallacious arguments here. That will establish a pariah status.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I've been rich and I've been poor and rich again. I kept banging my head against the wall, I suppose, until at last I had enough of it and finally took time to understand what wealth meant to me and what exactly everybody meant by money. All I can say is that I did it with as much objectivity as I was capable. Which I presume by your standards isn't very much, jr. I can live with that. We do just fine and are grateful to know that there's enough for those we leave behind, if they're sensible.

So yes, all too guilty and all too telling. My view of reality is distorted, as you say. It's distorted by my life experience, by my present condition and by my anticipation of the future near and far. I suppose most fundamentally, by my perception of what my own life and quite timely death will mean. Just like you, jr.

That's fair and I am genuinely happy for your transcendence. As they say money (or desire) is the root of all evil. Maybe I'm chasing evil. And once you catch it? Well a billionaire's son once told me "chasing wealth is a pit you can never fill". Wise words.

But a spade is a spade and nurses and teachers (at least in California) are not poor.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

So you're living in downtown out of necessity, not because you want easy access to your friends, bars, and girls? Come on.

I think what's more preposterous here is that while you claim in a FIRE economy collapse my business will collapse (which it probably will) but that you earn a living in the financial services industry, unhappy with your success in the industry, yet continue to demonize the people in the industry.

In the bay area, California I lived off $1100/month my entire college career and my wife (gf at time) and I lived off $2500/month for years while working 100+ hour weeks to build our business. Your belief that Americans are unable to save and accumulate wealth through discipline and hardwork is simply incorrect.

Jr as I have said yes some people can save and accumulate some measure of wealth.

For the majority it is no more than a subsistence living of consumerism whether they know it or not.

The thing is I realize that the collapse is coming and I have little time "relatively" to get to a position to effect change and ride out the storm. My window of opportunity is closing and after the collapse it will be 100x harder to do something else or start a business.

As most would say I am extremely intelligent, hardworking etc yet I cannot get a job at a hedge fund OR raise money to manage capital through the storm because "whatever X reason" the people managing the funds or HR think about me. I dont have the right schooling, or connections or whatever.

While trying to get a position at a large consulting company for O&G where I had a guy I knew there who took my CV directly to the head of research only to be told "sorry we see him more as a sales person than research" Wouldnt even give me an interview.

Or in the final rounds of a large asset manager 6 month interview process the head of Alternative Investments Sales & Marketing telling me "I am too young to put in front of pension funds/endowments and that he didnt believe I could be an effective sales person" This after the HF manager went to bat for me and told the firm he wanted to hire me. Enough that I interviewed with the CIO of the investment bank and he told me "The HF manager never talks anyone up and he talked you up which is impressive" Not to mention I use to be in institutional fixed income sales for a mid-tier broker dealer where I was paid only on commission and started with no connections, just about the hardest job you can have on the street.

So one says, nah we see you as sales, the other sales no you cant sell the HF you would work for? Wtf is that. Its all BS but none of those questions would arise if I had gone to Harvard.

So after 6 months what do I get? Crickets.....

The translation to that verbage is "you dont have a good pedigree so we cant show you off" and we simply "dont want you here."

The fact is I have delayed family formation, buying a ring, getting married and having children etc, because I do not feel I am in the position to provide for said family etc.

Do you not think I have anger toward the less well off people who continue to have 3 to 5 children? Do you not think I wish to have a son that I can teach all that I know? Yes, I have anger over that situation but I am still empathetic to the plight of the majority.

And I am living not in downtown which is about 2.5 miles away, I live out of necessity not to go to the bars (considering I am 30 years strong with never having a drink in my life) and have a girlfriend for 3+ years now.

In fact if I go out it is only to go dancing which I only go to one place, a middle eastern club that is not in Uptown but 10 miles north from where I live. I actually go the opposite way.

I spend my time on weekends and during the week doing economic research/investments but that "hardwork" gets me no where.

Time is running out. And yes most of the financial industry people use specious arguments to peddle their "products" to make money. I dont wish to do that, I wish to run a true fund that actually takes into account for the macro (which is what a hedge fund is supposed to do not have 30% + drawdowns as most had in 2008) while also making a good return during the good years even if that just means tracking the beta of the market. The problem is most of the capital/economic decision markers have a dearth of intellect.

But they sure are great at sales and marketing their products/funds.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

That's horsecrap. Take china for instance. Debt is easily available, you can borrow at 2% USD or 6.5% RMB last month. Yet Chinese shun debt. 50% down on a house. They don't buy Iphones despite being available they buy local phones. The carriers WANT to sell equipment financing plans but are unable to. Same goes with cars - who leases cars out there. It's our culture of debt not the lack or availability of it.

I dont think you can compare the culture of China created over 3000 years of obedience to the state with that of the US created 250 years ago on the principles of freedom.

Some cultures are more easily "convinced" than others. Besides China has much much much more debt than the US does, their FIRE economy is on steroids it just resides mostly in government hands.

And 99% of Chinese in China dont have a "good life" and are not consumers like the US.

And the iphone thing is probably wrong at least judged by the lines and lines of people outside the Apple store.