Inequality much worse than most think

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Ah I see, you own a business. That is where your world life view is coming from.

I have no doubt you worked hard to start and run your business.

My father too owns a business, a small time property developer.

He started in 1983, the year of my birth and also the best year to start in any business related to credit or construction.

My father works extremely hard and has all his life. Over the years he never grew his company that big. He always had 1 reliable carpenter and 2 more than would come and go etc throughout the year.

He would build 2 to 4 houses a year and that was enough for him. He never wanted to grow his small business into a large company like Pulte homes. Just build enough each year to sustain his living standards. He rarely took any vacations and has very little hobbies outside of work.

When I mean work he actually did all the work the carpenters did (not this business of only providing the capital and hiring other people to do the actual work).

From framing the house to buying his own equipment that he used to eventually do all the excavating and foundation work himself which included building the roads for his development community, laying the cables down etc.

He never had anything more than his work truck (which he would change out every 4 years and never bought on credit, cash or lease) and a car for his wife, usually a cadilac until recently when GM took away their lease program due to 2008 where he changed to a E class mercedes, a decent car.

His house he lives in he built in 1992 himself.

He barely graduated high school yet draws up all the plans for the houses (the drafting work) with no formal education in engineering and is not particularly good at mathematics. He designs all his own houses for custom build.

I suspect most people can do this if given the opportunity at a job but again no one is willing to teach anymore.

Now through no fault of his own (even being prudent for the better part of 25 years and never over building once in a his life) my father was left after 2008 with not being able to sell his houses and not being able to build anymore because no one was buying.

He waited from the end of 2008 to 2012 before even doing anymore work and selling a house. Now imagine if you had to forego your income for 4 years in your mid-50s.

What do you say to him? A man who has done everything the "hardwork" way the "right" way "the prudent way" never going into debt, never over building and virtually living the all american life from his fathers generation?

A man who can no longer change his stripes and do something different, an expert in constructing a house but in nothing else. What is he supposed to do?

My experiences adn thought process are rooted in realism and reality not in this make believe world that you seem to live in.

The actions of the power brokers, obtuse economists and politicians (by enriching themselves at the expense of the economy and pushing everyone into debt serfdom) almost destroyed my fathers life through no act of his own even after doing what you and the others are saying on this forum:

Hardwork!, Bootstrap! you can work your way up! Aggressiveness and intelligent gets you ahead!

My father too believes in those principles and look where it has gotten him.

As I sit here today I know for a fact the words coming from those principles are hollow rooted in an idealogy promoted by the powers that be to "control" the process and usurp most of the gains and productivity in the economy for the past 30+ years.

A cruel trick that was foisted on the people.

It will not happen to me.

Sorry to hear about your dad, but I know the exact opposite scenario. My cousin who graduated state school worked for years at my aunt's store (think swapmeet) refusing to leave her side even though the business was unprofitable. In 05-06 my aunt got sick and passed, my cousin shut down the business. My cousin then went into real estate mostly remodels, general contractor work, stuff like that. My cousin was good managing laborers and contractors of all sorts. At the height of the downturn in 08 my cousin began doing flips mostly half destroyed houses with blood, sweat, tears, working 100+ hour weeks - today my cousin is worth several million and came from very little. Obviously the FEDs QE has helped tremendously in this profitability. But that same opportunity should have been available to your father. To say that it's all opportunity or a rigged system is simply not fair and inaccurate.

You can still make it in America if you try. It's just harder with QE.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I am merely defending the idea that what is considered "equal" in no way even resembles our own historical precedent, unless that is one is a British Royalist loyal to King George.

Yeah. In many ways the laws have gotten softer over time. But then you look at the Code of Hammurabi and see something like this:

48. If any one owe a debt for a loan, and a storm prostrates the grain, or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no rent for this year.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Not until you put that slogan on a coffee mug or a key chain so that I have something tangible to believe in.

Fair enough. Sorry for that post. Sometimes my mind wanders and I write in gobbledegook.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I believe I see a flock of frightened crows...

More like hungry vultures...

[DSpencer]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

That is what it means to you and it is not any sound moral principle by any tradition I have observed except for perhaps oppressive, legalistic societies. However "equality under the law" is junk social philosophy that begs the question and my proofs were already presented.

The concept of equality under the law "begs the question"?

Your "proofs" are only aimed at showing that laws can still be unjust even if they treat everyone the same. I've stated explicitly already that equality under the law does not guarantee that every law is just.

I already debunked it. All one has to do to oppress the Irish is to fund research showing that boiling in big open pots is dangerous, and then move to pass the law using a largely disinterested majority that hardly knows the difference. There goes the traditional boiled dinner. But its all "equal under the law". Raw milk is illegal for everyone. Since I am one of the few that makes his own cheese, and would like to control my own pasteurization, the law only really falls on me. However since most of the people like you see "equality under the law", whats the harm in forcing ultra pasteurized on everyone? Why not do this with eggs ? Shouldn't we have pre cooked eggs and pre cooked chickens equally?

Ugh. You already "debunked" a thousand year old principle of law?

Raw milk being (sort of) illegal for everyone fell on me as well. When I wanted to start drinking raw milk I had to actually buy a "herd share" so that technically I owned the cows whose milk I was drinking. Since it was so inconvenient to pick up my milk at a specific time and place I didn't drink it for long. I probably paid about 30 dollars a gallon if you average it out. I share your view, raw milk should be legal for those who are willing to take whatever risk (real or imagined) that it may pose. But so what? It's irrelevant.

Well didn't Jefferson say that all men were created equal? Therefore there was "equality under the law."

No, there wasn't. Saying something doesn't make it true. And saying men are created equal is not the same as saying they have equality under the law.

It's pretty gosh dang obvious that African Americans did not have equality under the law. Pointing out that people made clearly flawed claims that they weren't full people does nothing to prove they had equality under the law.

You are the one who did not make a convincing argument . You have not successfully defended your statement that "equality under the law" is a convincing principle with a well established premise. Its a slogan with no real meaning.

It's a slogan with no real meaning? You act like I made this idea up myself over breakfast. As Woodsman already pointed out, it has an extraordinarily well established premise.

I think equality under the law is much more objective and realistic than equality of opportunity. You appear to think the opposite. I doubt we will change our minds.

[Woodsman]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

...But why does post count come into play in a debate? Perhaps "seniority" should be equally weighted. I've been here since 2009. But I don't believe that either

Really? You don't understand why someone would give more credence to the views and opinions of a longstanding community member versus that of a relative newcomer? And particularly one with such gifts of congeniality and bonhomie!

[aaron]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Yes, make all the right choices and you may be successful. How many people can attain that in this day and age? What percentage of the U.S. population?

There was a time where you did not have to make perfect choices and you could still be "successful" in the United States. We took better care of our brothers and sisters as well.

We have 5 generations of people alive now. There is a massive disconnect between them.

[Forrest]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Yes, make all the right choices and you may be successful. How many people can attain that in this day and age? What percentage of the U.S. population?

There was a time where you did not have to make perfect choices and you could still be "successful" in the United States. We took better care of our brothers and sisters as well.

We have 5 generations of people alive now. There is a massive disconnect between them.

The disconnect between generations is as much a matter of technological and electronic substitutions for human relationships, but even so, there must be an achievable success goal for any generation.

Before we can even discuss this question we would need to establish what is 'successful'.

[DSpencer]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Our current system can be used to legislate an entire group of people for anything. Could the government or a "populist" president get 50% of the national vote and the congress to say that anyone of middle eastern descent must be rounded up and deported? Yes they could.

They could also enact an environmental law saying that families are only allowed 1 child for "environmental reasons."

To think that our current system couldnt do this is a bit naive. What it has actually done is get the majority of people to think that the rich shouldnt pay higher taxes and be taxed "equally" as someone making 50k a year, it is all clouded in smoke and mirrors. For reference I am not a democrat or left wing.

To be clear, I am not claiming we actually follow the principle of equality under the law. I already lamented that we don't.

If a majority of people think the rich shouldn't pay higher taxes, it's news to me. The top 10% of taxpayers paid over 70% of federal income taxes. If the rich want to pay less, and who would dispute that, then why aren't they? If the majority of Americans would support the rich paying the same taxes as someone making 50k a year shouldn't it have already happened?

[BadJuju]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

If a majority of people think the rich shouldn't pay higher taxes, it's news to me. The top 10% of taxpayers paid over 70% of federal income taxes. If the rich want to pay less, and who would dispute that, then why aren't they? If the majority of Americans would support the rich paying the same taxes as someone making 50k a year shouldn't it have already happened?

And they pay proportionately less than the average American. The top 20% control 95% of this country's non-home wealth. And 79% of wealth including the home.

[DSpencer]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

And they pay proportionately less than the average American.

Can you provide proof of this statement?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Can you provide proof of this statement?

Here are the best recent comprehensive figures I've seen on the matter. The million+ crowd pays proportionately less than the 100k crowd on average. Not less proportionately than the 50k crowd. Actually, the structure is surprisingly flat from about 50k on.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Yeah. In many ways the laws have gotten softer over time. But then you look at the Code of Hammurabi and see something like this:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

More of the stuff of "barbarism":Deuteronomy 24

⁶ “No man shall take the lower or the upper millstone in pledge, for he takes one’s living in pledge.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

The concept of equality under the law "begs the question"?

Yes,

Here is the formula:
Equality under the law = good, therefore how can one be against it?

I think there a is problem with the premise ,and I have given many real world examples were laws can appear equal but are designed , or can be, to fall on a target minority. Thus "equality under the law" is not a sufficient moral principle without the preamble to support the spirits of the law. Enforced circumcision could be "equality under the law" . So could mandatory mastectomies for every lump. After all, with socialized medicines why should I endure the unnecessary risk of having to cure something that breast removal so easily solves? And lo, the law applies to men who have breasts.

Your "proofs" are only aimed at showing that laws can still be unjust even if they treat everyone the same. I've stated explicitly already that equality under the law does not guarantee that every law is just.

Then I missed your concession.



This was your original refutation:

Well it's still not clear to me. The concept of equality under the law is much more clear and seems clearly desirable. If only we would stick to it.

To this statment

Now its quietly become a government enforced privilege

So how have you not restated my position given what I said, more or less, that the laws are not sufficiently just even if they can be shown to be objectively equal in some way?

Ugh. You already "debunked" a thousand year old principle of law?

I debunked the concept of a rather incomplete formula. You said we should just stick to "equality under the law." Indeed, be well and prosper....only how so?

Raw milk being (sort of) illegal for everyone fell on me as well. When I wanted to start drinking raw milk I had to actually buy a "herd share" so that technically I owned the cows whose milk I was drinking. Since it was so inconvenient to pick up my milk at a specific time and place I didn't drink it for long. I probably paid about 30 dollars a gallon if you average it out. I share your view, raw milk should be legal for those who are willing to take whatever risk (real or imagined) that it may pose. But so what? It's irrelevant.

Then I have failed to convey to you the main point. "Equality under the law" is not a full shield of justice, thus I cannot say I can just stick with it. We don't even stick with it. Should minors be "equal under the law". I anticipate the reply from many to be all minors are equal under the law that specifically applies to them. It reminds me of the car commercials that say "most leg room for its class". Class of what? What about selective service? Is that equal? What about the drinking age? That "equal"?

No, there wasn't. Saying something doesn't make it true. And saying men are created equal is not the same as saying they have equality under the law.

Given that it was a preamble to the new legal system I would not agree.

It's pretty gosh dang obvious that African Americans did not have equality under the law. Pointing out that people made clearly flawed claims that they weren't full people does nothing to prove they had equality under the law.

And so now its "equal" because they are not slaves?

It's a slogan with no real meaning? You act like I made this idea up myself over breakfast. As Woodsman already pointed out, it has an extraordinarily well established premise.

I humbly beg your pardon, not just you at all. It is a cultural phenomenon. Had you told me that you liked to light fire cracker between your toes I would have been more dismissive of you personally.

I think equality under the law is much more objective and realistic than equality of opportunity. You appear to think the opposite. I doubt we will change our minds.

Hence our problem, there is much less objectivity in the eyes of a tyrannical majority. "Equality under the law" is a classic blind spot for the tyranny of the majority problem.


And speaking of who, is this really my opinion?

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

Federalist #10, Madison.

Why not just make Kosher food law? Surely a law like that will fall on practicing Jews as well as those who are not. Its all equal.


I think the concept is complete crap, nothing personal. I would prefer something much more fundamental like say sexual pleasure being a much more fundamental principle than the organ of either sex. Which one is really the object in question?

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Here are the best recent comprehensive figures I've seen on the matter. The million+ crowd pays proportionately less than the 100k crowd on average. Not less proportionately than the 50k crowd. Actually, the structure is surprisingly flat from about 50k on.

I also pay for the corn and soy subsides . Don't use it equally, but I am an equal so I gotta pay.

All taxes that are not based on the concept of user fees cannot be demonstrated to be fair by any standard seen everyday in a school yard. The basic premise of who pays is entirely flawed in the first place. Even if the wealthy paid 90% , the argument of who pays more still isn't valid. A clear demonstration of the absurdity is a despot who pays a 100% tax on his salary while living in the presidential palace. What sort of municipal tax does Larry Ellison pay on his 98% owned island? Does he pay high taxes for roads that are essentially his driveway?