Inequality much worse than most think

[santafe2]

Re: money vs happiness

Right. Money matters when it frees you from oppression, persecution, or physical poverty.

It may be more straight forward than that. It's always about the money. As there are more humans on the planet, oppression, persecution and poverty are working their way up the ladder. Your sentence only needs two words, money matters. It stands for power. I'm not advocating for it, just observing that this is the way the world works.

[BadJuju]

Re: $8k not enough?

Thirty odd years ago, one applied for the job, knowing you could do it, and if your resume was slim for their taste, all you needed to do was offer to work a week for free to prove your proficiency. It showed your real interest in the job, and made a big point out of experience not being proficiency, as most bosses are aware that 1 years experience twenty times over does not mean any growth within that experience.

This, to me, just sounds like another boomer completely divorced from reality. Sorry, bub, but things aren't so easy. I've applied to tons of jobs before and could not get them. The only reason I got this one is because I have connections on the inside and it is a place that generally only hires people they know. And I get to work twice as much to earn the same amount as the generation before me did.

I just really dislike hearing someone older than my generation tell me about work when they had it ******* easy as pie and lived high off the hog so future generations could be fucked.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: money don't matter

It may be more straight forward than that. It's always about the money. As there are more humans on the planet, oppression, persecution and poverty are working their way up the ladder. Your sentence only needs two words, money matters. It stands for power. I'm not advocating for it, just observing that this is the way the world works.

For most people in the developed world, money has very little effect on personal happiness.
I am not talking about political influence. Just personal happiness.

Why? Because the sense of economic well being comes from comparing yourself to those around you.

So if your fortune improves, you move to a more expensive neighborhood, and then you feel poor again.

The solution is not to base happiness on economic outcomes.

True poverty works against happiness, just as lack of air works against life. But an abundance of air does not improve life, anymore than an abundance of wealth improves happiness.

In college I was around a billionaire's son (or maybe it was just many millions). The father started out from a middle class family, did well in school, became professor at a top university. That was not enough, so he started a company which competed successfully with a huge multinational corporation.

The son is majoring in the same subject that his father is professor in. But he is not getting good grades. In fact, he is in danger of getting kicked out. Is that son a happy person?

[Polish_Silver]

Re: money vs happiness

I think there is a very important concept of wealth that we as a community can encourage others to develop and that is Enough.

To my thinking since a very young age Enough is Personal Economic Liberty, that is, to have enough assets to never have to do anything that you do not want to do -- for ethical, health, or other reasons -- for income and still care for yourself, family, community, and others you love.

Other definitions?

Great thought but "caring for family" now means 1 car/adult, 1 bedroom /child, private schools, etc.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: money vs happiness

Great thought but "caring for family" now means 1 car/adult, 1 bedroom /child, private schools, etc.

The important metric we're using is only 1 TV per house, as opposed to the norm of 1/room.

Same with "luddite nights"

[Polish_Silver]

free will

I wouldn't describe us as beneficiaries. Maybe in a better life with a better world in a better universe, I would, but not this life nor this world or the universe it resides in. I do not think we have free will. A completely material existence that operates mechanically precludes it. I do not dispute consciousness; however, it is only awareness. Awareness is not agency. We are trapped in these bodies and minds and we exert no control over them.

What is compelling you to read these lines, write what you do, eat your breakfast?

Could you not refrain from eating? Some do refrain.

That we have free will is a matter of experience.

What would it mean to be "not trapped in a body?" Is there any example of that?

I deliberate in the face of complex decisions. I would spend more time deliberating if I had it.

Is this not a sign of free will?

[jiimbergin]

Re: money vs happiness

Just finished building this. First bread.

I love to make bread, but WOW! That is pretty cool!

[wayiwalk]

Re: money vs happiness

Just finished building this. First bread.

Great job - the bread looks like it has great texture.

[littleshark]

Re: money vs happiness

Great thought but "caring for family" now means 1 car/adult, 1 bedroom /child, private schools, etc.

Larry Holmes, the boxer, once said when asked why he settled in Easton, PA after retirement: "If I move to the city I have to keep up with the Jones', in Easton, PA they have to keep up with the Holmes'."

One of my favorites......Everyone I believe should strive to create a life and live in a place they deem comfortable, and it may differ wildly among who you are and what your needs/wants are.

[vt]

Re: money vs happiness

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/cha...r-heard-about/

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Share on facebookShare on twitter
Share on emailMore Sharing Services

Carpe Diem

Chart of the greatest and most remarkable achievement in human history, and one you probably never heard about

Mark J. Perry | December 31, 2013, 5:40 pm

Everybody’s featuring their “graphs and charts of the year,” like The Atlantic and theWashington Post (be sure to see Vice-President Joe Biden’s “Graph of the Year” on Amtrak ridership). Well, the chart above could perhaps qualify as the “chart of the century” because it illustrates one of the most remarkable achievements in human history: the 80% reduction in world poverty in only 36 years, from 26.8% of the world’s population living on $1 or less (in 1987 dollars) in 1970 to only 5.4% in 2006. (Source: The 2009 NBER working paper “Parametric Estimations of the World Distribution of Income,” by economists Maxim Pinkovskiy (MIT) and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (Columbia University).
What accounts for this great achievement that you never hear about? AEI president Arthur Brooks explains in the video below, summarized here:

It turns out that between 1970 and 2010 the worst poverty in the world – people who live on one dollar a day or less – that has decreased by 80 percent (see chart above). You never hear about that.
It’s the greatest achievement in human history, and you never hear about it.
80 percent of the world’s worst poverty has been eradicated in less than 40 years. That has never, ever happened before.
So what did that? What accounts for that? United Nations? US foreign aid? The International Monetary Fund? Central planning? No.
It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship. In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world.
I will state, assert and defend the statement that if you love the poor, if you are a good Samaritan, you must stand for the free enterprise system, and you must defend it, not just for ourselves but for people around the world. It is the best anti-poverty measure ever invented.

Share on facebookShare on twitter
Share on emailMore Sharing Services

60

Tags: Capitalism, Free enterprise, World poverty

[lektrode]

Re: money vs happiness

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-of-the-greatest-and-most-remarkable-achievement-in-human-history-and-one-you-probably-never-heard-about/....

It turns out that between 1970 and 2010 the worst poverty in the world – people who live on one dollar a day or less – that has decreased by 80 percent (see chart above). You never hear about that.
It’s the greatest achievement in human history, and you never hear about it.
80 percent of the world’s worst poverty has been eradicated in less than 40 years. That has never, ever happened before.
So what did that? What accounts for that? United Nations? US foreign aid? The International Monetary Fund? Central planning? No.
It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship. In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world

well i guess thats a good thing - for most of The Rest of the world - just too bad - for US - that it came as a result and at the cost of shipping most of US manufacturing base (read: US JOBS, particularly the jobs that BUILT THE MIDDLE CLASS) to the 3rd world/china/india - and We, The People - The Rest of US - got what, precisely, in return (sides cheap plastic and 'lektronic junk...
oh and yeah, almost fergot; and sh__ty tel-based customer 'service' - where yer lucky if they even understand the question - or you them - never mind can answer it _effectively_ )

also noted on that site (above) was a link to this one:

Who’d a-thunk it?
States that vote Republican have higher volunteer rates than states leaning left

The graphic above is from the interactive chart “Volunteerism in America” (based on data from the BLS and Census Bureau) and shows that volunteerism is highly correlated with political philosophy – volunteer rates are higher in states heavily favoring Republican presidential candidates in elections from 1992 to 2008 than in states heavily favoring Democrat candidates during those years.

guess thats not all that surprising - esp the states at the lower end of the spectrum - where the costs/daily-grind associated with merely staying alive - never mind getting ahead - are such that - what, with the typical traffic-choked/union&cronyclass-infested/buraCratic/debt-hamstrung economies these states are burdened by - is it any wonder...

its also immediate noticable by what their infrastructure typically looks like and how well it 'functions' (usually only for the 'benefit' of the above mentioned sectors that the political class is beholden to and to hell with anybody else..)

[santafe2]

Re: money vs happiness

States that vote Republican have a higher volunteer rates than states leaning left

This is likely related to a stronger religious affiliation for voters in these states. See UT as above all other states for a pointer. A PEW study showed that Dems are about twice as likely to be religiously unaffiliated as Republicans. I couldn't find a study that breaks it down by state but I suspect that a "liberal" state like NY or HI would have a greater portion of Democrats who are unaffiliated than you would find regarding Dems in a conservative state. Volunteerism is a core value in most religions. It is after all a great way to increase the size of the flock.

I'll use myself as an example. When I lived in Los Angeles, I never volunteered and I'm not sure I knew one person who went to church. Now I live in a much smaller and predominantly Catholic community. The spirit of volunteerism here is much more solidly entrenched and, over time, that has made it's way into our lives. I and my wife volunteer a minimum of 10 hours of our time a month and it's the best way to get to know people with different affiliations and some common goals. It is a core ingredient of the culture here.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: money vs happiness

This is likely related to a stronger religious affiliation for voters in these states. See UT as above all other states for a pointer. A PEW study showed that Dems are about twice as likely to be religiously unaffiliated as Republicans. I couldn't find a study that breaks it down by state but I suspect that a "liberal" state like NY or HI would have a greater portion of Democrats who are unaffiliated than you would find regarding Dems in a conservative state. Volunteerism is a core value in most religions. It is after all a great way to increase the size of the flock.

I'll use myself as an example. When I lived in Los Angeles, I never volunteered and I'm not sure I knew one person who went to church. Now I live in a much smaller and predominantly Catholic community. The spirit of volunteerism here is much more solidly entrenched and, over time, that has made it's way into our lives. I and my wife volunteer a minimum of 10 hours of our time a month and it's the best way to get to know people with different affiliations and some common goals. It is a core ingredient of the culture here.

While it's interesting to see political affiliation correlates with an increased likelihood of volunteerism, I wonder what happens when you filter not for political affiliation but filter for population density?

The first thing I think about the difference between top right and bottom left is population density....NOT politics, religion, ethnicity, income, or education.

The greater the population density I would assume there is better economies of scale to have a public/private service where in less dense communities the public/private service is lacking.

Maybe "big city" folks exchange taxes/cash for public/private services that "small town" folks exchange their own time for volunteer services?

[lektrode]

Re: money vs happiness

While it's interesting to see political affiliation correlates with an increased likelihood of volunteerism, I wonder what happens when you filter not for political affiliation but filter for population density?

while thats certainly a factor in NY & HI, with the latter, IIRC, 'having a higher pop. density than even NYC' along the urban core/coastal band of Oahu's south shore (and its quite visible on any given day, esp during the 'rush' hour - rush being a term having not much application over there - and the gen'l tendency of the locals to move as do flocks of birds/schools of fish - as in: ALL at the same time/moment)

and having spent quite a bit of time in both the lower end and top end of that spectrum - i still say it equates more to the expense/challenges of staying alive in the lower/bluer end - one gets quite a bit less-inclined to volunteer to do ANYTHING, when one is forced to devote most of their time to mere existence - and since lots of the still-working class in HI in particular have to work multiple jobs just to maintain their 'living' standard (and pay the rent, with one of the lower % of home ownership) - with most of the population of NY likely in the same sitch (those outside of manhattan anyway) - and would bet that it the same in CA, esp in the LA area (outside of the southbay/405west anyway).

in short - any place where the political class has smothered the population/economy with taxes/buraCRATS/unions/debt-service or to put it another way: given away the treasury to BUY VOTES (usually of that part of the electorate that depends upon same for their livelyhoods - or EBT/Sect8 payments)

The first thing I think about the difference between top right and bottom left is population density....NOT politics, religion, ethnicity, income, or education.

The greater the population density I would assume there is better economies of scale to have a public/private service where in less dense communities the public/private service is lacking.

Maybe "big city" folks exchange taxes/cash for public/private services that "small town" folks exchange their own time for volunteer services?

all valid points/questions LD - and of course we know how some of these surveys like to ask 'leading questions' so as to come up with the preferred answers.

but one thing i do know for certain - one big city in particular - the one in Utaaaah - does seem to do quite well for itself - on both the volunteer score and what it gets from - and because of - its Public Resources
(read: The Public Gets What It Pays For, in SLC, quite unlike a lot of the other cities i'm familiar with)

[Ghent12]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Wealth inequality does not matter at all except as a political vulnerability for the creators of wealth. The video is fundamentally pointless because its primary subject is wealth inequality and its angle is the emotional "should be" aspect of what people think would be "fair," as if wealth is magically distributed from on high and doled out for reasons other than market forces.

Another aspect of the video that is questionable comes from the sources mentioned in the YouTube about section. Specifically, the MotherJones article and some other sources for the other articles mention household income. You cannot be taken seriously in a discussion of economics when trying to prove any point using "household income" as a metric. Why? Households change in size over time and across demographics. Not only that, but a raw analysis of household income has no bearing whatsoever on how well or how poorly individuals are fairing in this or any other economy.

Take an example of a twenty-something still living with mom & dad, has earned a degree but has yet to find employment in her chosen career and is biding her time with full- or part-time work--as soon as she finds a job in her career and moves out of her parents' house, she lowers her parents' household income and creates another low-income household, thereby creating two separate blows to the average household income of the country, yet that situation is hardly a bad one for the economy overall.

I strongly encourage the use of the brain when discussing economics. This ridiculous video discourages the use of the brain and encourages a raw emotional reaction. Emotions in politics are why poor people stay poor and why wars happen. Get your emotions out of the picture.