|
Nitrousoxide posted:Whatever. I think that experiment is cool and look forward to the data from the result. It'll be interesting to if the major concern with a GBI (discouraging the unemployed to find employment, or seek under employment) will coalesce or not. This test program pays $7,200/year, that's not a minimum basic income as traditionally defined, since it is traditionally defined as something you can actually scrape by on if you really want to not work.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I just noticed the bizarre pattern in this chart: rather than peaking between $35k and $75k a year, the odds of someone self-identifying as middle class keeps going up and up with the more money they make. Almost three-fourths of rich fucks think they're "middle class", despite in practice being paid more than 87% of Americans are. At $150k-200k/year household income, all of your basic needs are definitely met, you likely have very good retirement savings, etc. This is definitely a huge income and a sign of a wealthy household. But people don't associate the label "upper class" with that sort of stuff, they associate it with opulence and extravagant displays of wealth. And for younger people in high-paying jobs, it might feel even less opulent when you've got so much student loan debt to take care of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I just noticed the bizarre pattern in this chart: rather than peaking between $35k and $75k a year, the odds of someone self-identifying as middle class keeps going up and up with the more money they make. Almost three-fourths of rich fucks think they're "middle class", despite in practice being paid more than 87% of Americans are. Class as it is usually discussed is not a straight 33%/33%/33% split of the population based on income. The upper class distinction arose out of the gentried/noble class, which generally made up under 5% of the population. The upper class today is more complicated and less formal but should probably not make up more than 5-10% of the population if it is to be a useful indicator. Somebody making more money than 87% of Americans definitely could be middle class. They may still be upper class but that would be due to cultural and other concerns rather than raw income level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Is social class in America based solely on the money you have or do you distinguish between old and new money? My perception is that families that have been wealthy for a century and families who became wealthy in the past generation do mostly run in different social strata, but we mostly despise the former, and deny that they form an upper class. No one thinks that the current Roosevelt patriarch is somehow more significant or impressive than Lebron James.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:This is a good time for me to make a special request: He's had this in the works for a year now ... the problem with an article like this is that it requires contemplating the subject in depth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Man you guys are testy. I hope I didn't seem testy in my post but i'm just saying the competition isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's actually really rare that competitors win by providing the cheapest/best stuff any more. There's so many other ways to win that competition is often not the most effective way to optimize situations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I hope I didn't seem testy in my post but i'm just saying the competition isn't all it's cracked up to be. This is because most consumer markets have an oligopolistic structure and engage in non-price competition in order to sustain their markups. Unless you're talking about something else entirely?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Ormi posted:This is because most consumer markets have an oligopolistic structure and engage in non-price competition in order to sustain their markups. Unless you're talking about something else entirely? Which is itself a refutation of the notion that market competition is optimal for reducing prices and improving quality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Which is itself a refutation of the notion that market competition is optimal for reducing prices and improving quality. Oligopolistic markets didn't get that way through competition, but through externally imposed barriers to entry and corporate welfare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:That kind of strays into "No true Scotsman" territory, though. Not unless it's impossible to define the membership of any set.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Sparta was kunda unique though. They had to establish an organisation to control their slaves (the crypteia) which is something I don't think other slave dociety had to do. Every slave society needed a security apparatus to control slaves, keep them working, prevent revolts, and suppress them when they occurred. Whether this was a central organization with a special name doesn't seem especially relevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Definitions change. Note how you had to specify "classical liberals" just now to explain where the ideology originated. When the other side can also argue that you don't understand what words mean, I don't think arguing over the words serves any purpose. Check it out, I'm a conservative but I'm the kind that embraces new innovations in the social order enthusiastically. What? That's contrary to all existing understandings of the term and its basic ideological tenets? Nice No True Scotsman, scrublord, definitions change. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:They think of their millionaire bosses when they fill in that circle, I'm guessing. Could also be professionals that started out at 60-80k, and then after working in their field for 20-30 years now make well north of 100k. They could see themselves as middle class because they were middle class for the majority of their lives, and only recently have they moved up to a higher position like a director or a VP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Check it out, I'm a conservative but I'm the kind that embraces new innovations in the social order enthusiastically. What? That's contrary to all existing understandings of the term and its basic ideological tenets? Nice No True Scotsman, scrublord, definitions change. Since you apparently skipped my last post... Bobbin Threadbare posted:I'm just saying that arguing about which words a fascist should use to self-define is less important than establishing how and why their beliefs are going to cause a lot more harm than good. Every specific argument and debate can and should define which words mean what beforehand, but they don't have to be externally consistent. The fact that they aren't is what causes a lot of miscommunication between ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:I'm just saying that arguing about which words a fascist should use to self-define is less important than establishing how and why their beliefs are going to cause a lot more harm than good. Every specific argument and debate can and should define which words mean what beforehand, but they don't have to be externally consistent. The fact that they aren't is what causes a lot of miscommunication between ideologies. But you're not doing that either. Instead, you're giving us an argument about what sorts of arguments are okay to give.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Could also be professionals that started out at 60-80k, and then after working in their field for 20-30 years now make well north of 100k. They could see themselves as middle class because they were middle class for the majority of their lives, and only recently have they moved up to a higher position like a director or a VP. Because of social shifts it's actually likely that many of those people didn't come from money. A first gen college student whose parents were working class isn't going to get a huge inheritance or anything like that and as was mentioned probably has loans. People who live in opulence usually have dynastic wealth behind them. A ton of professionals don't and don't get access to upper class luxury. Edit: the wealthy also have ways to hide their income. Things like reinvesting gains and being all "well see that doesn't count so I only really made $50k." I'm also wondering if that only counts wages; returns on investments or capital gains are a different bag. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Since you apparently skipped my last post... And nothing of value was lost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
divabot posted:He's had this in the works for a year now ... the problem with an article like this is that it requires contemplating the subject in depth. I actually don't mind delving into the muck—I've got a pretty strong stomach for this stuff. The real problem for me is making it a cohesive article. There are just so many directions to approach this subject from, and so many little things and tendencies from within libertarianism that tie into it, that it's very hard to create something coherent and comprehensive from what would otherwise be pages and pages of stream-of-consciousness, tangent-ridden rambling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:But you're not doing that either. Instead, you're giving us an argument about what sorts of arguments are okay to give. I'm saying that arguing over the names of philosophical definitions is less useful than arguing over their contents. Someone could call himself the Walrus of Communism and argue in favor of loosely regulated free markets with limited government safety nets, and someone else could spend all day arguing that he should actually call himself the Walrus of Conservatism while a third party argues his views are extreme enough to make him the Walrus of Libertarianism. Instead, I'd rather spend the day arguing why safety nets are an overall benefit and an investment in society and why selfish action on the part of free market actors makes stronger regulation worth the added time and effort. Labels are useful at a glance and for organizing groups together, but the details behind an individual's self-label are more important when you're trying to change someone's mind. Dismissing a person or group for using the wrong name is pointless because that dismissal isn't going to change anything. GunnerJ posted:And nothing of value was lost. Okay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
This is a whole lotta flailing about being wrong on a very basic point. imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
You can argue over multiple things at once. I'm doing it on this very page!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Ormi posted:You can argue over multiple things at once. I'm doing it on this very page! Okay. So would you consider one of the arguments more useful?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Okay. So would you consider one of the arguments more useful? I think telling ancaps why they're not real anarchists is very useful at getting them to stop considering me their ally, and piggybacking on anarchist thought in their rhetoric. "Look how stupid these collectivists are" coming from them is a victory, not a defeat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I think telling ancaps why they're not real anarchists is very useful at getting them to stop considering me their ally, and piggybacking on anarchist thought in their rhetoric. "Look how stupid these collectivists are" coming from them is a victory, not a defeat. Who is in your av, and why are they wearing boxing gloves and ski goggles? I love it, and it's mesmerizing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I think telling ancaps why they're not real anarchists is very useful at getting them to stop considering me their ally, and piggybacking on anarchist thought in their rhetoric. "Look how stupid these collectivists are" coming from them is a victory, not a defeat. How often does that actually work, though? And how is it helpful for two groups who identify themselves as anarchists to mutually dismiss each other? Honestly, I see it as being about as useful as this argument at this point. It started over a miscommunication, it continued over semantics, and it hasn't really changed anyone's opinion. So let me apologize for wasting all your time and show you that I try to practice what I preach:
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Getting someone to stop masking their repugnant views as another philosophy entirely when introducing their ideas to other people is a win. That's why this thread can make fun of ancaps instead of getting caught up in debating Emma Goldman. It's thanks to the invisible work of thousands of anarchists trolling the poo poo out of bowtie-wearing slavery apologists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Getting someone to stop masking their repugnant views as another philosophy entirely when introducing their ideas to other people is a win. That's why this thread can make fun of ancaps instead of getting caught up in debating Emma Goldman. It's thanks to the invisible work of thousands of anarchists trolling the poo poo out of bowtie-wearing slavery apologists. Don't hurt yourself with all the back-patting. Ow, gently caress, my arm!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Oligopolistic markets didn't get that way through competition, but through externally imposed barriers to entry and corporate welfare. This is just an anecdotal example, but where I live the dozen or so gas stations were all keeping their prices about $0.4/gal higher than the national average. This went on for a decade, until finally the manager of Costco began building a gas station and published an ad basically saying "you're all being ripped off on gas, but we're here to help." The gas station owners all claimed that there was definitely no price fixing going on, it just costs a lot to import gas! Costco opened the doors to the new gas station and immediately began charging $0.30/gal less than everyone else. And then everyone else followed suit. Somehow the same gas station owners were still getting by but were charging much less than before. The moral of this story is that sometimes a market will reach an equilibrium state even when basic economics says that competition should be driving prices down. The gas station owners were happy to keep their share of the market, maintaining a nice little game where everyone knew that the winning move was to not undercut each other, and a few new gas stations simply came in and played the same way. Eventually competition did shake things up when a new provider refused to play, but only after a decade of silent refusal to compete.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
This reminds me of that probably fake but still pretty great story about an ancap getting his rear end kicked by a Greek anarchist group after telling them about how anarchism means capitalist inequality. eta: crossposted
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
quote:Eventually one of the guys spoke up and I thought he was Greek, but he spoke English perfectly so he may have not been. He said he knew what anarcho-capitalism was and that we were basically fascists. He asked me if I thought everything should be private. And I said yes. And he asked me if I thought people were unequal. And I told him yes. And that not everyone would have equal rights. I said everyone has the right to own property and not be done aggression against. But that not everyone had to be treated equally by the owners. He said what about immigrants and racism. And I said that would not happen in a free market, but yes property owners could be racist if they wanted to. They had to respect property.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I actually don't mind delving into the muck—I've got a pretty strong stomach for this stuff. The real problem for me is making it a cohesive article. There are just so many directions to approach this subject from, and so many little things and tendencies from within libertarianism that tie into it, that it's very hard to create something coherent and comprehensive from what would otherwise be pages and pages of stream-of-consciousness, tangent-ridden rambling. Would it be possible for you to break the subject down into smaller pieces, do a series of smaller articles on those, and then tie them all together?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
It's great because he complains about being oppressed by getting kicked out of a building by its owners right after talking about respecting property.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's great because he complains about being oppressed by getting kicked out of a building by its owners right after talking about respecting property. And he defends kick people out for the colour of their skin right before getting kicked out for the content of his character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
In other news: Boy doesn't a lack of safety regulations look fun? I feel freer just watching that. http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/05/18/why-some-of-indias-best-selling-cars-fail-basic-safety-tests/ quote:David Ward, secretary general of Global NCAP told The Wall Street Journal that the results “reflect a legacy problem in India which is a lack of regulation and also consumer’s lack of awareness.” quote:Responding to the findings, Maruti Suzuki, India’s largest car maker by sales, said all its products “are safe” and “meet the safety standards in India and in most cases, exceed them.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:In other news: Boy doesn't a lack of safety regulations look fun? What could possibly go wrong with squares windows? It's not like the plane is ever going to experience any torsion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Would it be possible for you to break the subject down into smaller pieces, do a series of smaller articles on those, and then tie them all together? Probably? There is a lot of stuff I want/need to cover. The Non-Aggression Principle; how the NAP fails without consent; the hostile and transactional nature of social interactions presumed by libertarians; the overemphasis of negative rights and how that fails with children; how libertarianism responds to exploitation; the owner/property dichotomy; and how all of that stuff combines to enable pedophilia within libertarianism. It's not how I'm used to writing nonfiction on wikis. I could break it down into sections within the page, certainly, but I'm still not sure in what order I should address each subject.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Probably? There is a lot of stuff I want/need to cover. The Non-Aggression Principle; how the NAP fails without consent; the hostile and transactional nature of social interactions presumed by libertarians; the overemphasis of negative rights and how that fails with children; how libertarianism responds to exploitation; the owner/property dichotomy; and how all of that stuff combines to enable pedophilia within libertarianism. Honestly a lot of libertarianism can be described as "a system built entirely around consent, where consent was defined by a 17th Century white dude."
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Could also be professionals that started out at 60-80k, and then after working in their field for 20-30 years now make well north of 100k. They could see themselves as middle class because they were middle class for the majority of their lives, and only recently have they moved up to a higher position like a director or a VP. I always thought the distinction was that the middle class laboured for their income, while the upper class generated their income from existing assets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:I always thought the distinction was that the middle class laboured for their income, while the upper class generated their income from existing assets. That's the distinction for like middle versus upper class in Victorian-era England and Scotland. And in that case, a lot of those middle class people were significantly wealthier and getting more ongoing income than the upper class people, but they couldn't get in to the social circle of people whose great-great-great-great-grand-uncle did a favor for the king 600 years earlier and so he had a hereditary manor. It's never really applied for the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:In other news: Boy doesn't a lack of safety regulations look fun? Auto safety is just the beginning. Personally, I can't wait to get rid of airline safety regs. And don't event get me started on food safety. Hazard analysis and control is a total pita, let me tell you. Truly, a glorious future awaits us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:23
|
|
