• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

I can't load the study right now but I would assume college loan debt is included into college costs.

Yes, probably too busy calling out other posters for what they failed to conclude on your assumptions. #undefeated is hard work.
 
Thank you, Chris.

Hahaha. You embarrassed yourself again. How about this nugget? Any college degree helps out tremendously and the top 10% of high school graduates can only hope to match the bottom 10% of college grads. There's nothing in that article that supports your point.

The range of earnings within each major is wide — about as wide as the spread we saw above in the charts comparing median earners in different majors. Put another way, a person at the 90th percentile for childhood education majors will quite handily outearn someone at the 10th percentile of computer engineering majors. In fact, at the 90th percentile, people with only a high school degree outearn any college majors at the 10th percentile.



 
Yes, probably too busy calling out other posters for what they failed to conclude on your assumptions. #undefeated is hard work.

I think we can conclude there are no useless degrees, only useless people like you who managed to get degrees.

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/major_decisions_what_graduates_earn_over_their_lifetimes/

Part 3 will go into detail about debt to show what threshold people need to meet in order to pay off student debt early in their careers.
jhmd, you are crowing about a small percentage of the small percentage of people at the bottom of the income distribution. Basically you're talking shit about preschool teachers who may have trouble paying off their loans.
 
Do you not think that is an implicit assumption for those advocating for no affirmative action or some redistribution of capital/resources to help alleviate the problem? Or does everyone admit the playing field is not level and then some just argue that we shouldn't take race into account when trying to level the playing field? I'm legitimately curious how you can advocate for color blind policies if you believe that the playing field is inherently stacked against people of color. There's a stunning amount of dissonance there in my opinion.

Similarly, I would argue that anybody who claims that we are in a "post-racial America" is implicitly stating that the playing field is level. If we're "post race" then it necessarily follows that there are no vestiges of racism still existent right? Otherwise you're not in a post-racial America I would think.

I'd like to get some thoughts on this post JHMD
 
Do you not think that is an implicit assumption for those advocating for no affirmative action or some redistribution of capital/resources to help alleviate the problem? Or does everyone admit the playing field is not level and then some just argue that we shouldn't take race into account when trying to level the playing field? I'm legitimately curious how you can advocate for color blind policies if you believe that the playing field is inherently stacked against people of color. There's a stunning amount of dissonance there in my opinion.

Similarly, I would argue that anybody who claims that we are in a "post-racial America" is implicitly stating that the playing field is level. If we're "post race" then it necessarily follows that there are no vestiges of racism still existent right? Otherwise you're not in a post-racial America I would think.

A couple of thoughts, actually.

First, I don't know anyone who seriously thinks the playing field is now or ever was level. That accusation is an ad hominem soundbyte of no value added to any discussion.

Second, just because we agree on the problem (and to review, we do), doesn't mean that I have to co-sign the first solution you came up with. There are several problems with the solutions you favor. De jure racial discrimination is against the plain meaning of the Constitution. I understand that great effort has been undertaken to read away the "equal" part of the equal protection clause, but treating two people differently solely on the basis of race should always be considered a no-fly zone for our government. This is that clause:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I do not see an exception for states to deviate from that clause when enough well-intended people think that private business are committing bad acts that the sovereign is compelled to counterbalance with bad acts in the other direction. Any solution we propose should probably be legal, within the letter and the spirit of the rule.

I also will tell you that while much-maligned racism is to blame for many of our country's ills, the 15 year old high school drop out mother isn't getting passed over for investment banking jobs because of racism. Admitting her to college on a preference in the hopes that it will all turn out okay ain't going to fix what's wrong with her life. The changes needed to bring the playing field closer to balance are more structural and fundamental than simple ascribing everything to other people's prejudice. If you want to build sustainable growth for challenged groups, fix the most acute problems first: a complete breakdown of the family structure, failing public schools and an awful lot of self-destructive choices are a lot easier to address than other people's feelings.
 
jhmd, if you don't believe in a level playing field, why did you insist that people who major in "identity studies" (people who are more likely to be minorities) are better off not going to college in the first place?

The chart clearly shows that is a ridiculous notion because there isn't a level playing field. White people can get away with your plan but minorities can't.
 
I'm not sure why you guys are indulging the resident master of trolling and pivoting and goalpost moving, but I think he's having a great time at your expense. The problem of more than 100% of income growth in the current expansion moving to the top 10% and away from the bottom 90% has shit-all to do with median degree earnings and everything to do with stagnant bottom 90% paychecks, with little regard to the degrees possessed by the people within the 90%. Nobody has gotten a raise in real terms since about 1990, except the people at the very top of the income ladder, who keep getting more and more money trickled up to themselves in the form of increased after-tax returns on capital and executive compensation increases completely out of proportion to any value delivered by the executive to the organization.
 
jhmd, if you don't believe in a level playing field, why did you insist that people who major in "identity studies" (people who are more likely to be minorities) are better off not going to college in the first place?

The chart clearly shows that is a ridiculous notion because there isn't a level playing field. White people can get away with your plan but minorities can't.

*sighs*

When a person puts an identity studies on a job application, fairly or unfairly, the prospective employer in the State where I live in is going to close their eyes and see this. It may not be fair, but it is nonetheless the face of that brand.

But, as noted extensively yesterday, my concerns aren't just with identity studies but with the other majors below the median point on the WaPo graph. Sure, on average you will make marginally more money than an average high school grad, but at what cost (and query if all "average high school grads" are the same; hint: we know by the use of the word average that that is not true). I'm not planning on giving birth to all of them. If I have a child that wants to major in a humanities major (like both of his parents), he needs to understand what the choice means in 2024, from a business perspective. If he's comfortable with the certainty of substantial nondischargeable debt in exchange for the prospect of a below-average salary (at an incremental increased earning over the average), then he should do that. I would instead encourage to out-earn the average high school grad and to avoid pernicious levels of debt.
 
I think we can conclude there are no useless degrees, only useless people like you who managed to get degrees.

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/major_decisions_what_graduates_earn_over_their_lifetimes/

Part 3 will go into detail about debt to show what threshold people need to meet in order to pay off student debt early in their careers.
jhmd, you are crowing about a small percentage of the small percentage of people at the bottom of the income distribution. Basically you're talking shit about preschool teachers who may have trouble paying off their loans.

Ph, I'm beginning to think that you are losing your bearing, my friend. So far you have deployed the arguments of a) "you are stupid", b) "you are useless" and c) "you hate preschool teachers."

I don't know that those are the fingerprints of a well-crafted argument.
 
jhmd, you keep posting articles that derail your own argument. When called out on it, you retreat to the margins of your own argument to try to find something you can stand on.
 
jhmd, you keep posting articles that derail your own argument. When called out on it, you retreat to the margins of your own argument to try to find something you can stand on.

i believe this is called #neverfails
 
I'm sure the author that tj is reading is equally incensed about the billions in tax cuts and subsidies that Rick Perry has been shovelling out to recruit private enterprises to Texas over the past several years, to the tune of about $19 billion/year. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/us/winners-and-losers-in-texas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What a silly card to play. Every state and every governor is competing to give away cash to any company that promises to create jobs, but without bothering to look it up I'd be willing to bet that the red states lead the pack (since Texas is putting a huge thumb on the scales).

The point was that many government attempts to take something from one person and give it to another increase the income disparity. We have a much bigger government now than some years ago when the income disparity was not as great. The WSJ editorial illustrates one possible mechanism through which government elites hand over the people's cash to themselves and their friends.
 
# neverfails vs #undefeated is always entertaining.

HVhSw.jpg
 
Ph, I'm beginning to think that you are losing your bearing, my friend. So far you have deployed the arguments of a) "you are stupid", b) "you are useless" and c) "you hate preschool teachers."

I don't know that those are the fingerprints of a well-crafted argument.

It always comes down to arguments like these when you are forcing someone else's property away from them for the benefit of yourself and your buddies. They are in some way bad, so you take what they have.
 
It always comes down to arguments like these when you are forcing someone else's property away from them for the benefit of yourself and your buddies. They are in some way bad, so you take what they have.

WITH A GUN
 
jhmd, you keep posting articles that derail your own argument. When called out on it, you retreat to the margins of your own argument to try to find something you can stand on.

I think it is special that you feel that way.
 
Pretty much everyone but you feels that way so it's not special.
 
The point was that many government attempts to take something from one person and give it to another increase the income disparity. We have a much bigger government now than some years ago when the income disparity was not as great. The WSJ editorial illustrates one possible mechanism through which government elites hand over the people's cash to themselves and their friends.
The first sentence is not supported by anything in the story you posted. The second sentence is quantifiably untrue in many ways. While overall government outlays have grown with entitlement programs, employment by government is at a historically low point and the government has substantially less control over the economy than during much of the 20th century (when the Feds controlled, for example, pricing on airfare, interstate trucking, and many commodities). Without the entitlement programs we have, it's a good bet that inequality would be substantially worse.
 
Back
Top