Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Sixstrings » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 14:58:06

Yup, Nickel, your soft spot for the working man's plight betrays your niceness. Very Canadian. ;)

mmkay I'm gonna go bone up on my high school French knowledge now so I can pass the immigration scheme. ham.. jambon. cheese.. fromage. Un, deux, troi, quatre, cinq, six, sept, huit, neuf, dix, onze, deuze, treize, quatorze, quinze, seize, dix-sept, dix-huit...

What else do I need to know? Must I like hockey? Must I be able to pick out a maple from a cannibis leaf?

Oh, and I own two light jackets, a sweater I drag out every christmas, and lots of bermuda shorts. How cold does it get up there?
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Nickel » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 16:04:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'M')ust I like hockey?


No, but you must be able to identify and praise Paul Henderson.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'M')ust I be able to pick out a maple from a cannibis leaf?


Well, it's your money. I have no idea what an ounce of maples leaves smells like burning...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'H')ow cold does it get up there?


Define "up there". It's a big country.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America

Re: US has larger trade deficit than all other nations combi

Postby Jester » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 16:52:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', '.')..
10 billion sitting in *investments* trying to accumulate even more wealth to hoard doesn't keep the little stores down the street in business...
...
FALSE
If a rich man invests in stock ABC.
That provides money for the company to expand business and hire more employees.
Those employees then spend their money on "the little stores down the street".


More realistically it provides money for the company to give bonuses to their already wealthy and overpaid execs, and to contribute to that investor becoming richer still.

Sure his wealth is helping the Porsche salesman, the doggy psychiatrist for his little poodle, and other essential services the wealthy need, but I guess I'm just silly and think people being able to afford food and maybe an education would be better for the economy...
User avatar
Jester
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Tyler_JC » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 17:02:01

Interesting side note about income equality.

Split the US into fifths.

The median number of income earners in the bottom fifth is zero. That is to say, those in the bottom fifth of the US generally don't work.

The next two fifths have a median number of income earners of one. They are single income households.

The top two fifths of households have a median of two income earners.

The increase in inequality between households is largely do to the huge divide between single income and dual income households.

Image

Shouldn't we expect greater inequality if a large portion of the female population enters the workforce while another large portion of that population does not?
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Nickel » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 17:16:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he median number of income earners in the bottom fifth is zero. That is to say, those in the bottom fifth of the US generally don't work.


One might actually say quite the reverse is true. Have you ever seen something like Roger & Me, where Moore interviews huge crowds of middle-aged Debbies who've clearly never worked a day in their lives (aside from planning bridge parties), and have never had to because their one-income homes have salaries that don't just bring home the bacon, but the sirloin tips as well?

Poor people often work more than one job -- remember Bush gushing all over that ultra-American woman with three? Yeah, like she wanted that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he increase in inequality between households is largely do to the huge divide between single income and dual income households.


Tyler, I'd like to see you back up your proposition with demographics. How many "one-income" homes are in the bottom fifth... and how many are in the TOP?
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Tyler_JC » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 18:07:57

The labor force participation rate is only about 2/3.

That means a lot of people over the age of 16 aren't working.

Some are retired, some are disabled, some are unemployed, others are unemployable and still others either don't need to work or don't want to.

The bottom fifth of households includes a large number of retirees, college students, and welfare recipients.

If your only income is transfer payments, you are not considered to be an "income earner" (worker) but you are still a household.

That's why the bottom fifth of households appear to lack an income earner.

Image

Between 1970 and 2002, women entered the workforce in large numbers and a small number of men left.

The households with one income are far likely to have lower incomes than two income households.

Sure, there is the occasional rich investment banker who can bring home a million bucks a month while the wife sits around buying new shoes but for the most part, there is a strong correlation between income and number of income earners.

Image
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Cid_Yama » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 18:18:46

This actually was all set in motion a couple hundred years ago with the attack on the theory of Mercantilism by the neo-capitalists.

Just like global warming deniers, they attacked the basic tenet of Mercantilism, <b>that it's a zero-sum game</b>. In order for Capitalism to thrive, this knowledge had to die.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Tyler_JC » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 19:27:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'T')his actually was all set in motion a couple hundred years ago with the attack on the theory of Mercantilism by the neo-capitalists.

Just like global warming deniers, they attacked the basic tenet of Mercantilism, <b>that it's a zero-sum game</b>. In order for Capitalism to thrive, this knowledge had to die.


But it's NOT a zero sum game in most cases.

Comparative advantage isn't fiction.

It does make sense for Iowa to grow the food and Washington to build the airplane. Each state is demonstrably better off by trading with each other.

Comparative advantage doesn't work when currencies between countries are ruthlessly manipulated.

If we had free floating currencies (or a gold standard) the trade deficits of the world would shrink.

We are only questioning the concept of comparative advantage because of government manipulation, not free market forces.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

Re: US has larger trade deficit than all other nations combi

Postby cube » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 22:30:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', '.')..
10 billion sitting in *investments* trying to accumulate even more wealth to hoard doesn't keep the little stores down the street in business...
...
FALSE
If a rich man invests in stock ABC.
That provides money for the company to expand business and hire more employees.
Those employees then spend their money on "the little stores down the street".


More realistically it provides money for the company to give bonuses to their already wealthy and overpaid execs, and to contribute to that investor becoming richer still.

Sure his wealth is helping the Porsche salesman, the doggy psychiatrist for his little poodle, and other essential services the wealthy need, but I guess I'm just silly and think people being able to afford food and maybe an education would be better for the economy...
I'm going to end this here because you have obviously given up on having a serious discussion.
When you decide to take things seriously then you can meet me in a different thread, but not here.

bye
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby cube » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 22:46:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'M')y point is that when TOO MUCH money is plowed into these financial instruments, the creation of bubbles is a surety. Of course, investment is necessary. But there is such a thing as TOO MUCH INVESTMENT. What you end up with is companies and homes valued at far more than their intrinsic value, and this necessitates a crash.
true

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'S')o, what causes TOO MUCH INVESTMENT? Uber super rich cause over-investment, because they have so much more than they can consume or invest wisely. They have so much money to throw around, there's nowhere for it to go but into bubble creation.
FALSE
Bubbles are cause by the emotions of crowds and not wealth disparity.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'I')t is a law of human nature that the more one has, the more that is wasted (keep in mind I'm talking the super rich, the ones with so much dough they blindly plow money into ultimately dubious tech stocks with poor earnings).

If we had more income equality, the lower classes would spend the money in the real economy, and not so much the bubbles.
FALSE
Recall at the hight of the mania, EVERYBODY both rich and poor were acting equally financially foolish.

//

I'm going to end this here because frankly I can see where this is going --> nowhere.

bye
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: US has larger trade deficit than all other nations combi

Postby Jester » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 23:18:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', '.')..
10 billion sitting in *investments* trying to accumulate even more wealth to hoard doesn't keep the little stores down the street in business...
...
FALSE
If a rich man invests in stock ABC.
That provides money for the company to expand business and hire more employees.
Those employees then spend their money on "the little stores down the street".


More realistically it provides money for the company to give bonuses to their already wealthy and overpaid execs, and to contribute to that investor becoming richer still.

Sure his wealth is helping the Porsche salesman, the doggy psychiatrist for his little poodle, and other essential services the wealthy need, but I guess I'm just silly and think people being able to afford food and maybe an education would be better for the economy...
I'm going to end this here because you have obviously given up on having a serious discussion.
When you decide to take things seriously then you can meet me in a different thread, but not here.

bye


That is the most pathetic cop out I've seen.

As our glorious system stands, many can't afford to get a good education, while others have so much money they could burn stacks of it to heat their homes. You see this as a good thing?

Got me thinking of people I know in Denmark. The government itself funds most post secondary education for the population. The country has one of the highest standards of living. Health care is also available to all regardless of wealth... They have (in my opinion) an overdone welfare system though. I believe the safety net should be there, but not to the point of abuse. But the education funding gives people options to better themselves without burying themselves under a mountain of debt.
User avatar
Jester
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: US has larger trade deficit than all other nations combi

Postby cube » Tue 16 Dec 2008, 01:01:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', 'A')s our glorious system stands, many can't afford to get a good education, while others have so much money they could burn stacks of it to heat their homes. You see this as a good thing?
Logical Fallacy

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', 'T')hat is the most pathetic cop out I've seen.
You want a better good bye? You asked for it so now you'll get it.
When a person tells me that they can *get something for nothing* then that's when I do NOT have to take them seriously.
That is what you are saying Jester and you are dead wrong.
Wealth is something that must be earned. It is NOT something that gets created out of thin air by taking money from person A and giving it to person B.

You truly do NOT understand anything.
Everything I told you basically went in one ear and out the other.
You were a waste of my time.

Good Bye -----> *hits ignore button*
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: US has larger trade deficit than all other nations combi

Postby Jester » Tue 16 Dec 2008, 02:17:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', 'A')s our glorious system stands, many can't afford to get a good education, while others have so much money they could burn stacks of it to heat their homes. You see this as a good thing?
Logical Fallacy

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', 'T')hat is the most pathetic cop out I've seen.
You want a better good bye? You asked for it so now you'll get it.
When a person tells me that they can *get something for nothing* then that's when I do NOT have to take them seriously.
That is what you are saying Jester and you are dead wrong.
Wealth is something that must be earned. It is NOT something that gets created out of thin air by taking money from person A and giving it to person B.

You truly do NOT understand anything.
Everything I told you basically went in one ear and out the other.
You were a waste of my time.

Good Bye -----> *hits ignore button*


Don't really care if you hit the ignore button, we exchanged 2 posts, nothing I said was rude to warrant that treatment. So if you're a guy who can't tolerate an opinion that isn't the same as yours, oh well :)

Regardless, to discuss the post... Of course wealth is earned. Just sad that it's the people that do most of the actual work, that get the least of the actual return from it. The earning is not proportionate to the work, countries collect a good amount of tax from the labour of all the citizens, but some people think it's unfair to ask that the country take care of it's people with some of the money it collected from them?
User avatar
Jester
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Nickel » Tue 16 Dec 2008, 09:16:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '[')img]http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/middleclass-large.jpg[/img]


This chart is ambiguous. It doesn't actually say that "married couples" are both earners and paying taxes. "Head of household" is equally vague; there's nothing in that that necessitates there be no other earners in the household, people living common law, etc.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: US has larger trade deficit than all other nations combi

Postby Nickel » Tue 16 Dec 2008, 09:23:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'G')ood Bye -----> *hits ignore button*


SFX: chicken noises
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Byron100 » Tue 16 Dec 2008, 10:17:38

You guys sure are heavy on the "ignore" button, huh? I just don't get this idea of self-censorship...if you don't wanna debate, nobody is forcing you to log onto Peak Oil . com in the first place....LOL.

I'd just like to bring up a question, however. Exactly how does one define "earn"? Is it taking a gamble on something, hoping you'll get lucky? I could go to Las Vegas and put $10,000 down on 27 and win me $300,000 - is that earning wealth? I don't think so. Is playing the stock market gambling? I sure as heck think so.

How about all those business owners, you say? Yeah, and who does most of the work? The employees, of course. That is, if the biz owner can make a go of it in the first place, what with all the barriers to small biz they have. It's like our whole society is geared towards to favoring a select few while the rest of the people are forced to slave at hated jobs at substandard wages.

I'm going to pull an RE here, and do a little preaching with a gun here too: The system we have today is immoral, it's inhumane, it's killing the planet, it's why we have Peak Oil in the first place, and it just plain SUCKS. Our system is geared towards favoring a select few, while the rest of us continually gets the shaft at every turn. This idea that "anyone can get rich if they just try hard enough" is complete and utter bullshite...and it's high time that people realize this. The American Dream needs to be unveiled for the sham it really is, a cleverly designed scheme to get us working "for the man" in hopes that we can be rich too. Phuck that shite, man, I've had it up to here. I really, really hope that this new Depression followed by a 6.7% depletion rate crushes us all, as we most certainly deserve it as a species of animal. I tell you what, Mother Evolution sure did fuck things up when it came to homo sapiens...perhaps the time has come for Her to fix that little problem...hehe. :twisted:

I think Karl Marx had it right - all roads will eventually lead to communism, as this capitalism crap just isn't working out too well for most of us. And thank the Good Lord God Jesus for Peak Oil, as that'll put an end to this madness soon enough. Like I said before, I'll not mind living in a mud shack if everyone else has to live that way too...LOL. It'd be okay if everyone could be rich, but that's clearly impossible due to resource constraints. So, if we all can't be rich, I say *nobody* has the right to be rich. And all this crap about the rich providing jobs, money, etc, etc, blah blah blah, I say poo to that too, as that's just a scam to tolerate being poor while the rich continue to rape us blind.

Anyhow, I really don't care how bad things are when it all comes crashing down - seeing those fat capitalistic pigs squealing in utter pain amid an orgy of utter destruction will all be worth it to me. What a show that will be!

Bring it on, I say, Bring. It. On.
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide...
...and the meek shall inherit the Earth!
User avatar
Byron100
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu 08 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Nickel » Tue 16 Dec 2008, 11:39:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', 'I')'d just like to bring up a question, however. Exactly how does one define "earn"? Is it taking a gamble on something, hoping you'll get lucky? I could go to Las Vegas and put $10,000 down on 27 and win me $300,000 - is that earning wealth? I don't think so. Is playing the stock market gambling? I sure as heck think so. ...our whole society is geared towards to favoring a select few while the rest of the people are forced to slave at hated jobs at substandard wages..


Hear hear.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Javaman » Tue 16 Dec 2008, 21:00:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', 'I')'d just like to bring up a question, however. Exactly how does one define "earn"? Is it taking a gamble on something, hoping you'll get lucky? I could go to Las Vegas and put $10,000 down on 27 and win me $300,000 - is that earning wealth? I don't think so. Is playing the stock market gambling? I sure as heck think so. ...our whole society is geared towards to favoring a select few while the rest of the people are forced to slave at hated jobs at substandard wages..


Hear hear.


When you place a bet, you and the casino are entering into a business deal. If the casino wins, and it usually does, then it has earned some money. Likewise if you win, you have earned some money.

If you have some spare cash lying around, you can invest in the stock market and take a calculated risk that you will lose some, most or all of it. If your stock picks are good, you have earned some money.

You could also try to open a business, using your best judgement as to how to run it, while also taking a risk that the business will fail and you will lose your money. Your employees are paid the wages that you and they agreed upon, regardless of whether you go bankrupt or make millions. You took the risk, you reap the rewards.
User avatar
Javaman
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby oiless » Wed 17 Dec 2008, 00:30:04

Businesses are normally opened using other peoples money. Only a fool would use their own.
User avatar
oiless
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Tyler_JC » Wed 17 Dec 2008, 01:14:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', 'B')usinesses are normally opened using other peoples money. Only a fool would use their own.


Huh?

Every small business owner I've ever talked to opened their business with their own money.

They tap their home equity, they take out personal loans, they borrow from their friends and relatives and they burn through every single penny they have in their personal bank accounts.

Running a small business is a lot harder than most of the posters on this forum realize.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his chart is ambiguous. It doesn't actually say that "married couples" are both earners and paying taxes. "Head of household" is equally vague; there's nothing in that that necessitates there be no other earners in the household, people living common law, etc.


Head of household requires that your spouse does not live with you. Head of household basically means that you are a single parent or a single person supporting a bunch of free-loading relatives (grandma, your unemployed brother, etc.)

Image

Common law relationships made up less than 10% of US couples in 2001 compared to 16% or more in Canada. So they aren't a large enough fraction of households to dramatically affect the data. I also don't think they are different enough from the rest of the population to change much. Many common law households use the "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately" tax form because they are considered married under federal law.

More importantly, why would being married increase your salary?

Do employers give you a huge raise just because you have a wedding ring?

The reason households made up of married couples have higher salaries than households made up of singles is that a significant fraction of the women are working.

Shouldn't married couples (with the option of two incomes) have higher salaries than singles living alone?

Assume everyone in the country earns $40,000 a year and there are an equal number of single versus married households. Also assume half of all married women work and all single people work. (not that outrageous of an assumption here).

You would end up with 50% of the population as singles earning $40K. 25% as married people earning a combined $40K and another 25% of married people earning a combined $80K.

No one is earning any more than anyone else but we still have glaring inequality.

The breakdown of the traditional family unit and the competition between working and non-working wives is bound to create income inequality between households.

It's not an opinion, it's a product of logic. I just happened to find data that backed up my logical conclusion.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests