Upward Mobility

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I grew up in inner-city Detroit. I worked nights in a factory while getting my degree. As a teacher, I don’t earn big $$$, but am proud of every dollar I earn, in honest exchange with the parents who pay my salary.

My wife inherited a good deal of money from a man who slaved all his life, invested and saved.

We are now quite well off. Do you, Pete, propose that we be taxed for the benefit of those who didn’t want to be bothered? For those who give up and become crack heads? To those who drop out of school and have baby after baby, usually with a different father for each kid?

If so, you’re motivation is destruction. You wish to destroy those who work and produce, for the benefit of those who don’t…for the benefit of the human incompetent, the lazy, the shiftless, the ‘if-only’ ones. In the name of benevolence, you wish to sacrifice the honest and the just, to those who’re neither. This we call moral cannabalism.

HH, again you have taken the premise of the post and twisted it into your demented world-view. The OP was about how many of the working class do not raise up out of that “class”. The fact that you get a free ride because your wife’s father was enterprising enough to save, invest, etc. proves the point that you couldn’t make well to do on your own.

Do you have any concept of the “working poor”? One summer I needed the cash while I was finishing up my degree so I took an “internship” in a factory building test equipment for laser printers. Basically, an internship is code for “we aren’t paying you shit”. I was glad for the $9.50/hour I made because it paid the bills. I was also receiving the GI Bill at the time so I was ok.

I was working along side some of the hardest working people I have ever known who never complained about their work whom subsequently made barely enough to survive and consequently had to take a second job after having been on their feet all day. I lasted the summer because I knew it was just a means to an end. My coworkers didn’t have that luxury.

I really take offense at people like you who turn these hard working people into victims. They are not. They need the same things to survive that you do–most of them had barely enough health care to pay for an emergency room visit. Paying the 20% not covered by their insurance would break them.

You are just a hack, surviving off his wife…tell us how the poor are stealing from you some more. I need a good laugh today.[/quote]

Sounds like you grew up in a lily-white suburb and have no concept of achievement. I was on the factory floor with those same people you describe. Why didn’t they go to school in their off hours? Oh, they had to take a 2nd job, because they got drunk and forgot to put on a condum. I get it now.

I’m happy that my wife inherited a boatload of cash from her grandfather. She’s also a university professor who earns more than me. If I’m the hack you say I am, why do I continue working? I don’t need to.

Think out your posts before letting your anger get the better of you. Your emotions are not an argument; they simply show that you are illogical.

42

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
In an extreme example Paris Hilton did nothing but be born, be a skank, and get drunk, and she is set for life. I fail to see how she worked hard for anything, ever.

This is one more data point that proves the estate tax needs to remain unchanged. We should change the name of the tax to “anti-king tax” to get more people on board–since the entire point is to keep people from riding on their parents laurels and stifling the rise of an aristocracy . Not that she should not get some inheritance. I just hope that her father is smart enough to give his money away before he dies.

Warren Buffet’s take on it, taken from:

http://www.pgtoday.com/pgt/articles/the_estate_of_the_union.htm

Buffet wins the prize for best estate tax sound bite with his now famous sports analogy. He argues that repealing the estate tax would be a terrible mistake equivalent to “choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics” (New York Times, February 13, 2001). If this is folly in terms of athletic competition, then why not in terms of economic competition?[/quote]

We don’t need a bandit-in-chief. Try it in Venezuela — the people there are suckers for dictators. Kill Chavez and take over.

43

[quote]PGJ wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
In an extreme example Paris Hilton did nothing but be born, be a skank, and get drunk, and she is set for life. I fail to see how she worked hard for anything, ever.

This is one more data point that proves the estate tax needs to remain unchanged. We should change the name of the tax to “anti-king tax” to get more people on board–since the entire point is to keep people from riding on their parents laurels and stifling the rise of an aristocracy . Not that she should not get some inheritance. I just hope that her father is smart enough to give his money away before he dies.

Warren Buffet’s take on it, taken from:

http://www.pgtoday.com/pgt/articles/the_estate_of_the_union.htm

Buffet wins the prize for best estate tax sound bite with his now famous sports analogy. He argues that repealing the estate tax would be a terrible mistake equivalent to “choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics” (New York Times, February 13, 2001). If this is folly in terms of athletic competition, then why not in terms of economic competition?

If I work hard, make millions, pay my taxes, why shouldn’t I be allowed to leave every penny, untaxed, to my children? I made the money, paid my share to the government, it’s mine to do with whatever I want. Why get taxed again because the money is changing hands? People want LESS government interference, yet support stuff like taxing inheritances among family members.

If I want to raise a spoiled, rotten idiot of a child like Hilton (which I do not) that’s nobody’s businees but mine. Do you REALLY want the government deciding this kind of stuff for you?

[/quote]

Yes, he does. He thinks, by his own admission in another thread, that he is far more intelligent than any of us. He therefore believes he has the right to administer our money and our lives. Like all libs, he’s simply a totalitarian elitist.

44

[quote]PGJ wrote:

IWork hard, get an education, improve your credentials, don’t whine = success

Minimal education, poor work ethic, bitching and complaining, complacency = failure.

Don’t blame anyone but yourself for your failures.

[/quote]

Yep. I graduated summa cum laude and had a successful year of graduate school. I got the work ethic/workaholism and drive,have busted ass on every job to the point where my health is damaged now. It is purely circumstances that have kept me from breaking into that golden realm of the middle class.

Despite my health limitations I still hope to join those annointed few someday.

Important to note however is the role that circumstance does play. You can’t change what happens to you, just how you react.

45

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sounds like you grew up in a lily-white suburb and have no concept of achievement.
[/quote]
I grew up in a miltary family with a mother who rarly worked beause of the desolate locations my father was stationed at.

A college education doesn’t do one any good if there is no industry to support it. I get you grew up poor–only poor people can act the way you do once they become well off. You did nothing to gain your wealth other than marry correctly.

It just amazes me you forget how hard you had to work and can think that other poor people aren’t in the same shoes now that you were in then.

These aren’t may emotions speaking in the least. Is it always the poor persons fault life didn’t go the way it was planned? Please don’t talk about logic. I’ve read many of your posts. I can’t believe for one second you actually teach math.

46

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
What do you consider a regular guy? It’s my money. I made it. I payed my taxes. If I want to give it to a stranger on the street, I should be allowed to do that without additional taxes. How in the hell can you justify the government deciding how to divvy up your estate when you die?

What if Paris Hilton was a smart, honest, hard working, well respected, business woman who wanted to take that money and reinvest it in the company, maybe set up a philanthropy, and cure cancer? Would you still want her inheratiance to be massively taxed?

Let’s not assume that EVERY kid who inherits huge sums of money is stupid or not worthy.

A “regular guy” would be someone who doesn’t own at least one hotel on every continent except Antarctica. Your children are not entitled by birth. That’s one of the reasons this country was founded–to stop the tyranny of oppressive dynasties/aristocracy. Hell, 50% of $50 billion is still a huge sum of money to do something with. The kind of wealth we are talking about is only realized by less than .001% of the world population.

Leave Brent the house in the Hamptons, I could care less about that. He’s not entitled to your ENTIRE dynasty. The fact that we don’t use royalty titles in this country should give you a clue. Brent is still going to be straight, living on his trust for the rest of his life. Hell, his progeny will be straight too.[/quote]

You are going to have to get more specific. You know how regulations work. At what amount of income or assets do you become “rich”, thereby making your life’s work eligible for massive taxation upon your death. What if it’s a Motel, not a Hotel?

You will never convince me that in America, an man can’t leave everything to his family. Shit, I don’t work hard so that I can give half my stuff to the government. I want to leave as much as humanly possible behind for my kids and grandkids. That’s the American dream.

Why is some “poor” person more worthy of my money than my own kids?

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
haney1 wrote:
I say let them keep their money, if they don’t know how to make it they won’t be rich for very long. Now if their parents taught them how to continue to make money with what they are given they will be wealthy not matter what.

I got your point. The problem is you are not sitting where I am. I don’t want my life’s work to be picked apart by the government just because they didn’t get enough of my money while I was living.

It is a faulty system. It makes people give to charity rather than them having the choice to give. It forces people to liquidate their assets. Which sometimes causes more harm than good. It causes undue stress on a family who just lost their love one.

Government: “we know you dad just died, but we have this matter of a bill to settle. Give us half of what he is worth now!”

What about the wife? she has to pay that tax when her husband dies. Didn’t she earn the money as well? why does she have to give up half of her lifestyle because the husband died?

They spent a life time working on something only to have uncle sam hold them up at gun point.

As I said it is faulty. The logic is faulty. You punish people who may or may not be good, to reward a government that is corrupt.

The wife is a different story than her future grandchildren. That has nothing to do with an estate tax. When both legal owners of the estate are gone it cannot go to the children.

The point is not to reward the government but to keep from establishing ruling dynasties based on some perceived “right” that does not exist. Your children have no right to your estate. In this country you do not inherit privilege–you earn it individually. Do not mistake an inheritance of money with and inheritance of an entire community of capital.

If I was a 51% shareholder of coca-cola and left my shares to one child and that child made one bad decision it affects the lives of many people. My child would be legally responsible because he was born to me. Logically, If one can inherit an estate then they also should have to inherit the debts too. Is that fair?[/quote]

What fucking “ruling dynasty” does Paris Hilton or Bill Gates belong to? This isn’t 17th century Europe. We have no royalty here.

48

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sounds like you grew up in a lily-white suburb and have no concept of achievement.

I grew up in a miltary family with a mother who rarly worked beause of the desolate locations my father was stationed at.

A college education doesn’t do one any good if there is no industry to support it. I get you grew up poor–only poor people can act the way you do once they become well off. You did nothing to gain your wealth other than marry correctly.

It just amazes me you forget how hard you had to work and can think that other poor people aren’t in the same shoes now that you were in then.

Think out your posts before letting your anger get the better of you. Your emotions are not an argument; they simply show that you are illogical.

These aren’t may emotions speaking in the least. Is it always the poor persons fault life didn’t go the way it was planned? Please don’t talk about logic. I’ve read many of your posts. I can’t believe for one second you actually teach math.[/quote]

My wife was NOT wealthy when we were married. We were graduate students. I had no knowledge that her grandfather was so well off. Hell, he gave us $100 as a wedding present and lived like a miser.

I can’t believe for one second you work in a lab, except as a janitor.

49

One problem I’ve seen in my life among friends and acquaintances, is that they want too much too quickly and often end up living above their means. They accumulate huge (compared to their ability to pay it at that time) debts and that keeps them down for a long, long time, as they work more and more to simply pay off the interest on all their outstanding debts.

It’s even worse when they keep the debt (by paying as little of it as possible) and try to increase their standard of living by borrowing more and more. “Keeping up with the Joneses” can be a crippling disease.

That, more than anything else, at least in my personal life experience, has been what keeps people from being upwardly mobile. I have quite a few friends that carry around multiple loaded credit cards on which they pay close to the minimum amount each month; coupled with much higher home-loan payments and car payments than I have.

We have similar income levels, but a disproportionate level of their income has to go towards paying stuff they bought when they couldn’t afford it. And yet, instead of hunkering down and paying off their debt, they keep piling it on at every chance they get.

50

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
US was once touted as th eland of opportunity, but with a disappearing middle class and a growing lower class, it seems the ladder of upward mobility is getting harder and harder to climb.

Studies show France, Denmark and Canada are beating the US in upward generational mobility. Americans are arguably more likely than they were 30 years ago to end up in the class into which they were born.

I read through the posts in the Gas prices thread and it seems the consensus is that the gas prices are OK if it makes some people wealthy, but it seems to me the only people getting wealthy are the wealthy.

So, Pete - do tell. What are the barriers? Lack of access to education? Overburdensome taxes?

“Land of opportunity” means success awaits you if you make good choices, work hard, put off self-gratification, invest in yourself, live within your means.

“Land of opportunity” does not mean a guaranteed income or standard of living regardless of your effort or work ethic.

So, I am curious - what are the barriers?[/quote]

Shitty, self defeating minority cultures. Genetics that prevent one from becoming intelligent. Not knowing the right people in the right places. Bad luck, being born poor. Lack of abortion rights creating just the type of people who abuse the system.

Yes, we want people to work hard. But I’d rather help support the lazy to help the stupid, then not help anyone at all.

Rugged individualism ruined our economy once. It’s a nice ideal; just like communism is a nice ideal.

Some people work decently hard, and never go anywhere in this world. If you’ve never seen it happen, you’re not looking very hard. Why must some people work ten thousand times harder than others? Shouldn’t ‘land of opportunity’ mean ‘equal land of opportunity’?

The fact is, it will never be equal. Some people we be born poor, some rich, some smart, some stupid, some will have a motivating environment, some a self-defeating one. Social programs help to balance that out by taking from the lucky and giving to the unlucky.

Some of the lucky may have needed to work, and some of the unlucky could get lucky if they tried, but, like I said, I’d rather help both then neither.

51

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sounds like you grew up in a lily-white suburb and have no concept of achievement.

I grew up in a miltary family with a mother who rarly worked beause of the desolate locations my father was stationed at.

A college education doesn’t do one any good if there is no industry to support it. I get you grew up poor–only poor people can act the way you do once they become well off. You did nothing to gain your wealth other than marry correctly.

It just amazes me you forget how hard you had to work and can think that other poor people aren’t in the same shoes now that you were in then.

Think out your posts before letting your anger get the better of you. Your emotions are not an argument; they simply show that you are illogical.

These aren’t may emotions speaking in the least. Is it always the poor persons fault life didn’t go the way it was planned? Please don’t talk about logic. I’ve read many of your posts. I can’t believe for one second you actually teach math.

My wife was NOT wealthy when we were married. We were graduate students. I had no knowledge that her grandfather was so well off. Hell, he gave us $100 as a wedding present and lived like a miser.

I can’t believe for one second you work in a lab, except as a janitor.

[/quote]

You didn’t marry her for her money, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t get lucky.

What if she was poor, do you think you’d be as well off as you are now? Would that be your fault?

52

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Shouldn’t ‘land of opportunity’ mean ‘equal land of opportunity’?[/quote]

Opportunity doesn’t mean guaranteed success. You can work very hard and still fail.

53

[quote]PGJ wrote:
…
What fucking “ruling dynasty” does Paris Hilton or Bill Gates belong to? This isn’t 17th century Europe. We have no royalty here. [/quote]

No shit. Let her squander her money. That is her problem. She is keeping Bentley and coke dealers employed.

54

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
…
What fucking “ruling dynasty” does Paris Hilton or Bill Gates belong to? This isn’t 17th century Europe. We have no royalty here.

No shit. Let her squander her money. That is her problem. She is keeping Bentley and coke dealers employed.[/quote]

The thing about Bill Gates is…

During the early years of MS. He slept on a cot in his office so he could spend as much time working as possible.

It is said that if there is $100.00 on bill gates office floor, and walks over to pick he up. the time it took for him to complete that task cost him more money than the 100.00 is worth.

With that said. Back in the days of sleeping on the cot the 100.00 would have come in handy. Amazing what 20 years of hard work can do…

Oh wait it was all given to Him…

55

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
…
What fucking “ruling dynasty” does Paris Hilton or Bill Gates belong to? This isn’t 17th century Europe. We have no royalty here.

No shit. Let her squander her money. That is her problem. She is keeping Bentley and coke dealers employed.

The thing about Bill Gates is…

During the early years of MS. He slept on a cot in his office so he could spend as much time working as possible.

It is said that if there is $100.00 on bill gates office floor, and walks over to pick he up. the time it took for him to complete that task cost him more money than the 100.00 is worth.

With that said. Back in the days of sleeping on the cot the 100.00 would have come in handy. Amazing what 20 years of hard work can do…

Oh wait it was all given to Him…[/quote]

I think Microsoft is pretty damned cutthroat and it has it’s own set of issues but I would rather Bill Gates spends his money than the government.

He has proved himself more responsible when it comes to spending on charitable works than the US Congress.

The fact that he actually earned the money is just icing on the cake.

56

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
…
What fucking “ruling dynasty” does Paris Hilton or Bill Gates belong to? This isn’t 17th century Europe. We have no royalty here.

No shit. Let her squander her money. That is her problem. She is keeping Bentley and coke dealers employed.

The thing about Bill Gates is…

During the early years of MS. He slept on a cot in his office so he could spend as much time working as possible.

It is said that if there is $100.00 on bill gates office floor, and walks over to pick he up. the time it took for him to complete that task cost him more money than the 100.00 is worth.

With that said. Back in the days of sleeping on the cot the 100.00 would have come in handy. Amazing what 20 years of hard work can do…

Oh wait it was all given to Him…[/quote]

Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Yes, Bill Gates worked his goddamn ass off. But so did a lot of his competitors, whom he ruthlessly shut down or bought out. What about them? Is it there fault they failed?

Yes, Gates is a philanthropist. But it’s hard to be THAT rich, and that much in the spot light, and not be one without looking like a total douche, something most people don’t want. What about all the other 100Million dollar worth people who give next to nothing? What about the millionaires who put their small time competitors (hard workers) out of buisness, who make massive layoffs to increase profit? Are those things evil? Of course not. They’re a necessary part of capitalism. But that doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t do a little Robin Hooding.

57

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
…
What fucking “ruling dynasty” does Paris Hilton or Bill Gates belong to? This isn’t 17th century Europe. We have no royalty here.

No shit. Let her squander her money. That is her problem. She is keeping Bentley and coke dealers employed.

The thing about Bill Gates is…

During the early years of MS. He slept on a cot in his office so he could spend as much time working as possible.

It is said that if there is $100.00 on bill gates office floor, and walks over to pick he up. the time it took for him to complete that task cost him more money than the 100.00 is worth.

With that said. Back in the days of sleeping on the cot the 100.00 would have come in handy. Amazing what 20 years of hard work can do…

Oh wait it was all given to Him…

If they quit and don’t try to get wealthy some other way, then that is their problem. The argument was it was handed to him, and he is apart of a ruling dynasty. This is not true.
“People think one day they will just wake up and be rich. The problem is they are half right one day they will wake up” ~ Thomas Edison.

Yes! They were out played through product, business relationships, marketing, or strategy.

The problem is the government is doing more than its fair share of Robin Hooding. They get the taxes while they are alive, and then kick them when they are dead.

Everytime this discussion comes up I get this mental picture of people taking all the clothes, and possessions off a dead body like in those old west movies. Except it is uncle Sam doing it.

[/quote]

58

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
…
What fucking “ruling dynasty” does Paris Hilton or Bill Gates belong to? This isn’t 17th century Europe. We have no royalty here.

No shit. Let her squander her money. That is her problem. She is keeping Bentley and coke dealers employed.

The thing about Bill Gates is…

During the early years of MS. He slept on a cot in his office so he could spend as much time working as possible.

It is said that if there is $100.00 on bill gates office floor, and walks over to pick he up. the time it took for him to complete that task cost him more money than the 100.00 is worth.

With that said. Back in the days of sleeping on the cot the 100.00 would have come in handy. Amazing what 20 years of hard work can do…

Oh wait it was all given to Him…

I think Microsoft is pretty damned cutthroat and it has it’s own set of issues but I would rather Bill Gates spends his money than the government.

He has proved himself more responsible when it comes to spending on charitable works than the US Congress.

The fact that he actually earned the money is just icing on the cake.[/quote]
I don’t think MS plays fair, but I respect Bill Gates work ethic. When you know what it took for him to get to where he is you realize it was anything but luck.

59

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
US was once touted as th eland of opportunity, but with a disappearing middle class and a growing lower class, it seems the ladder of upward mobility is getting harder and harder to climb.

Studies show France, Denmark and Canada are beating the US in upward generational mobility. Americans are arguably more likely than they were 30 years ago to end up in the class into which they were born.[/quote]

For the sake of controversy rather than belief I’ll throw out the following:

Suppose that the statistical decline in upward mobility may actually be an indication that the US does and has historically had much greater opportunity for upward mobility than others. I think few would argue that intelligence correlates more strongly with financial success than any other intrinsic trait except perhaps- maybe- work ethic. Few would argue that intelligence isn’t influenced strongly by heredity.

So one might suppose that if the barriers restricting opportunity had previously been removed, the population may have generally reordered itself enough towards the direction of a natural equilibrium that social mobility would appear to decline, when in fact the opportunity available to any individual possessing the traits necessary to advance remains strong.

The ever popular social Darwinism…

60

[quote]pookie wrote:

Opportunity doesn’t mean guaranteed success. You can work very hard and still fail.[/quote]

Exactly. Any free society will have levels of income disparity. There is no equality of result, and no one should try and mandate such an absurdity.

That said, I have no problem with having a system that tries to encourage equal opportunity because naked capitalism can be fairly brutal. But it should be done minimally and always with an eye to create equal opportunity.

And the point about living within one’s means is crucial - how many people claim to “work hard” but just “can’t get ahead” when they think that a flat-screen TV, a new SUV, and $45 haricuts are bare essentials to survival?

Think about any basic household’s entertainment expenses. Then do another accounting.