Psudo wrote:collegestudent22, it sounds to me like you're confusing wealth with technology.

I think it is you confusing wealth with some relative quantity. Wealth is a measure of the standard of living, and the standard of living for the poorest Americans today is substantially improved over previous generations on Earth exponentially.

Psudo wrote:You telling our 1771 man that he's poor because he doesn't have internet sounds a bit like him telling the Indians they're savages because they don't have (or want) brick houses and fur-lined coats.

Not really, because there is a fundamental difference between being poor - which the Indians definitely were, even compared to the English - and being "savage". Also, the Indians kind of invented fur coats. Needed them to survive.

I don't buy the progressive narratives that life and society improve every day in every possible way. Today is better in some ways and worse in others. Today is probably better overall (toilet paper! amen), but more for its legal improvements than for financial ones.

You got it like, totally backwards, with that statement. The majority of legal "improvements" are quite a problem, especially those in the 70s and later. But the market has drastically increased the standard of living for everyone.

Look, Bill Gates is worth around $61B. The average salary is around $45K. So let's "fix" the wealth disparity. Let's see. $61B / 300M = $203. Alright, would you rather have "your share" - a one-time payment of $200 - of Bill Gate's massive wealth, or would you rather see what massive improvement in standard of living that can be bought in 10-20 years with even the amount of money you make right now.

Average wealth is very much improved by the free market that America championed. Real GDP per capita shows that. More people got rich from the American system than all of history before, just as your recent post says. I agree, and never disputed that.

But the level of wealth those men achieved and the value of the commodities they possessed isn't always greater for today's many than for history's few. No one today is as wealthy as Rockefeller and Carnegie were, and the third richest man in history was William The Conqueror from the 11th century (source). The size of the fortunes of the richest individuals does not follow the same progressively upward curve as does GDP per capita. The richest men of 1770 and 1492 and 1056 would still be extremely rich today; there just weren't as many of them before the American Revolution as there have been since.

Similarly, it's far more common today for people to live as long as Benjamin Franklin did, but Ben Franklin lived that long even back then. The highest peaks of age are not much higher, but they are reached a lot more often. That's a metaphor for wealth; the highest achievements aren't much higher, but they are reached more often.

And that hypothetical guy with 60% of 1771 America's wealth is orders of magnitude richer than any actual person who has ever actually lived. You've taken millions of people's wealth (and disproportionately landowners) and combined it into one epic fortune. I don't think you comprehend the mathematical scale of that fortune.



Those are the important points. Quibbling nitpicks to follow.

collegestudent22 wrote:Wealth is a measure of the standard of living,

Are you suggesting that a comatose, divorced millionaire has a better standard of living than a happily married, healthy middle-class worker? I think not.

Wealth is a measure of material possessions. It is one aspect of standard of living. There are many others; health, freedom, and happiness to name a few.

collegestudent22 wrote:The majority of legal "improvements" are quite a problem, especially those in the 70s and later.

I meant the Revolution, US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the end of slavery, the end of segregation, and universal suffrage. You know, that America thing. The legal quibbles of the last half-century aren't even relevant by comparison.

collegestudent22 wrote:the Indians definitely were [poor], even compared to the English

No they weren't. They didn't recognize ownership in the same way the English did (or we do today), but they had plenty of wealth around them they owned in the only sense that meant anything to them. They fought for their borders, tended their forests and horticulture for their food. They just didn't carry their wealth around with them or understand the concept of individual (rather than tribal) property. Their richest weren't very rich, but their poorest weren't very poor either (except when they were being conquered, that is).

collegestudent22 wrote:Also, the Indians kind of invented fur coats.

No they didn't. Cavemen and Neanderthals invented fur coats after they first came out of Africa and populated northern Europe and Asia; it was thousands of years later before the Indians even existed as a people. But I explicitly said "fur-lined coats," and fur linings sewed to some other, decorative fabric were the result of the garment trade -- an specialization that sprung out of Eurasian urban centers, not Indian tribes.

collegestudent22 wrote:So let's "fix" the wealth disparity.

My original point in the original post of this thread was that there's no need to fix wealth disparity; it's been pretty stable through American history. This sort of thing that makes me think you're arguing against a point of view no one here has actually expressed.

Psudo wrote:No one today is as wealthy as Rockefeller and Carnegie were, and the third richest man in history was William The Conqueror from the 11th century.

This makes the monumental error of thinking in terms of objective value. Value is a fundamentally subjective concept. You can't just change one's possessions into a dollar figure and adjust it for inflation. It doesn't make sense to do so. How would you account for the value of things that were invented afterwards?

There is no real way to compare wealth in exact quantities over temporal distance. The most sensible way to determine whether wealth is improving, to my mind, is to look at the general standard of living - the amount of material goods people can buy. Outside of that, you can look at absolute poverty (not relative poverty like "lowest quintile", etc.) rates. How many people are struggling to get the necessities for survival - food, shelter, water, etc. The answer is far fewer than ever before.

collegestudent22 wrote:Wealth is a measure of the standard of living,

Are you suggesting that a comatose, divorced millionaire has a better standard of living than a happily married, healthy middle-class worker? I think not.

Wealth is a measure of material possessions. It is one aspect of standard of living. There are many others; health, freedom, and happiness to name a few.

A measure, not the only measure. Although, at the very least, health is partially tied to wealth through the healthcare system.

collegestudent22 wrote:The majority of legal "improvements" are quite a problem, especially those in the 70s and later.

I meant the Revolution, US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the end of slavery, the end of segregation, and universal suffrage. You know, that America thing. The legal quibbles of the last half-century aren't even relevant by comparison.

I meant the abolition of freedom over the last century. The assassination of US citizens without charge or trial. The abandonment of private property rights. The complete rejection of the free market by the US government. The trampling of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You know, the whole opposite of America thing.

collegestudent22 wrote:the Indians definitely were [poor], even compared to the English

No they weren't. They didn't recognize ownership in the same way the English did (or we do today), but they had plenty of wealth around them they owned in the only sense that meant anything to them. They fought for their borders, tended their forests and horticulture for their food. They just didn't carry their wealth around with them or understand the concept of individual (rather than tribal) property. Their richest weren't very rich, but their poorest weren't very poor either (except when they were being conquered, that is).

You have fallen into a romanticization of Native American culture that is decidedly false. I don't blame you - it is spoon fed to everyone by the government's indoctrination centers for the vast majority of American childhood.

Everything was at a subsistence level for the tribes in what is now the US. They survived, but they did not have wealth in any discernible sense. There was no real specialization of labor - a key part of wealth creation.

My original point in the original post of this thread was that there's no need to fix wealth disparity; it's been pretty stable through American history. This sort of thing that makes me think you're arguing against a point of view no one here has actually expressed.

Sorry, I need to be a bit more explicit there. My point was that stability, or not, of any wealth disparity is irrelevant. We don't need to fix it because it is not a problem, and could not be without a massive change to the basic structure of the market. Further, much of the current wealth disparity is artificial - mostly due to government preventing the market from working. My theory is that, were government to stop manipulating currency and controlling markets through onerous regulation and other policies, the wealth disparity would have been shrinking over time.

This discussion has been Deuced.

collegestudent22 wrote:You can't just change one's possessions into a dollar figure and adjust it for inflation.

Then why did you bring up real GDP per capita, which does exactly that?

How do you argue that the super-rich of the distant past are poorer than today's poor? The past rich could buy all the food, clothes, and shelter they wanted to whereas today's poor can't. That seems decisive to me.

collegestudent22 wrote:You have fallen into a romanticization of Native American culture that is decidedly false. I don't blame you - it is spoon fed to everyone by the government's indoctrination centers for the vast majority of American childhood.

I didn't get it from school or government. I got it from my hobby of reading nonfiction history books and deciding what from them sounds believable. Most of my views dispute what I was taught in school, and did while I was in school, too. Choosing Milton Friedman over Ludwig von Mises (or you) does not make me a dupe to left-wing rhetoric.

collegestudent22 wrote:My point was that stability, or not, of any wealth disparity is irrelevant.

Funny. My point is that, relevant or not, wealth disparity is stable. This sort of thing that makes me think you're arguing against a point of view no one here has actually expressed.

Psudo wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:You can't just change one's possessions into a dollar figure and adjust it for inflation.

Then why did you bring up real GDP per capita, which does exactly that?

GDP refers to production of goods overall. And it isn't even that great of a metric, I admit.

The past rich could buy all the food, clothes, and shelter they wanted to whereas today's poor can't.

Today's poor generally CAN. There are still people that can't, of course, but this is a far smaller segment than in the past. And it has been shrinking steadily over time.

Choosing Milton Friedman over Ludwig von Mises (or you) does not make me a dupe to left-wing rhetoric.

Ignoring the subsistence level of Native American culture beyond the biggest tribes (and the poverty level of even those) is not merely choosing one source over another (although I would say Friedman's point of view is quite self-contradictory in some aspects). It is a basic neglect of relevant history.

collegestudent22 wrote:My point was that stability, or not, of any wealth disparity is irrelevant.

Funny. My point is that, relevant or not, wealth disparity is stable. This sort of thing that makes me think you're arguing against a point of view no one here has actually expressed.

I wasn't intending to argue against a point - I was just weighing in on the topic of wealth disparity. I didn't realize that you wanted to focus on point-counterpoint discussion only.

You know what's poor? This thread.

Bam!

collegestudent22 wrote:

Psudo wrote:The past rich could buy all the food, clothes, and shelter they wanted to whereas today's poor can't.

Today's poor generally CAN. There are still people that can't, of course, but this is a far smaller segment than in the past. And it has been shrinking steadily over time.

This is exactly what I've been saying: the past had fewer rich, but their best-case scenario is still better than our worst-case.

collegestudent22 wrote:Say you were the wealthiest man in Boston in 1771. The poor guy in 2012 that has a small apartment with a computer, a flush toilet, an electric oven/stove, and a refrigerator is far wealthier than you ever were.

I think this is outlines the fundamental difference in how we reason. The wealthiest man in 1771 Boston couldn't possibly have a computer, a flush toilet, an electric stove, or a refrigerator; you think that makes the 2012 guy far richer. On the other hand, that 2012 guy couldn't travel to London on vacation, doesn't have 6-course meals served to him in a fancy dining room, and doesn't have his own balcony at the theater; I think those things are more significant evidences of wealth than precisely how that food was stored or prepared.

I do acknowledge that available technology matters. You haven't acknowledged that financial influence over one's surroundings matters, too. That's why I dispute your reasoning.

Psudo wrote:This is exactly what I've been saying: the past had fewer rich, but their best-case scenario is still better than our worst-case.

And you are hung up on the hyperbole and missing my point. It doesn't make sense to compare the rich to the poor, but the poor to other poor. "Poor" in the past meant "how do I get food on the table". Now it generally means "I only have one DVD player for my family to share". The position of the rich in relation to this is pretty much irrelevant.

Psudo wrote:On the other hand, that 2012 guy couldn't travel to London on vacation,

Neither could the guy in 1771. Hell, even traveling to New York from Boston would have been a very lengthy trip, and was pretty much reserved for politicians and other dignitaries on Very Important Business^TM.

I do acknowledge that available technology matters. You haven't acknowledged that financial influence over one's surroundings matters, too.

Only to a point, and then you are arguing over exactly how rich all the rich guys are.

The Free Market is great, but it didn't invent wealth.

That's precisely what it does. Every day.

collegestudent22 wrote:It doesn't make sense to compare the rich to the poor

Then why did you?

collegestudent22 wrote:

Psudo wrote:On the other hand, that 2012 guy couldn't travel to London on vacation,

Neither could the guy in 1771.

Untrue. Ben Franklin, for example, did his printer's apprenticeship in London before he rose to prominence. In the mid-18th century, traveling from port to port was far cheaper and faster than traveling over land. People would travel to London easier than inland to the frontier.

collegestudent22 wrote:

Psudo wrote:I do acknowledge that available technology matters. You haven't acknowledged that financial influence over one's surroundings matters, too.

Only to a point, and then you are arguing over exactly how rich all the rich guys are.

Which was the exact point you brought up with your comparison of 60% of 1771 to 0.1% of today. You're criticizing your own arguments.

There is a difference between the rich guys, and that difference matters. Bill Gates could buy and sell Pam Anderson around ten thousand times over, and that results in his charity work being about ten thousand times more legitimate and influential.

collegestudent22 wrote:

Psudo wrote:The Free Market is great, but it didn't invent wealth.

That's precisely what it does. Every day.

You're confusing "invent" and "create." Something can only be invented once per culture, but it can be created continually.

If I may add some interesting fodder to this debate, I present to you this morning's (Sunday, May 13) cover story in the New York TImes: A Generation Hobbled by College Debt. I'm not going to link to it because there's a pay wall blocking it.

It starts by presenting a woman who just graduated from a university (it doesn't say what major, or whether this is her bachelor's or master's degree she graduated with), but listed that she has a $120,000 loan, her monthly loan bill is about $900, and she's working two restaurant jobs just to be able to cover the cost. And this is despite going to a university which the article states that she "wouldn't seem a perfect financial fit for a college that costs nearly $50,000 a year." It also adds that college advisers "urged students to pursue their dreams rather than obsess on the sticker price."

So now, she's owe $900, and her parents co-signed the loans so they have to pay as well. Mom's taken out a life insurance policy on her daughter in case she dies, and they're left having to pay the bill.

Ouch. What a shame, and how stupid of them. But I digress.

The article then talks about how $1 trillion in outstanding student loans are out there and with the costs rising for college, the article notes how 94% of students had to borrow to pay for higher education now versus 45% when I first started going to college in 1993. Sadly, I'm one of the 3% who have borrowed more than $100,000, but the average debt is $23,300 and rising. It now eats 30% of all budget costs for public institutions and up to 71% for "nonprofit private." Your for-profit places like Phoenix is eating up 48% of income, or so says the TImes. 8% of all loans are in default and the worry is it's going to rise.

It's a really lengthy article and basically the article boils down to this could be the next "Too Big to Fail" financial crisis. The article also implies it will drive more educated graduates into poverty.

While I read this, I listened to Adam Carolla complain that there needs to be more emphasis on teaching students in the workshop instead of music and he adds that most people who end up creating or fixing things for a living (carpentry, builders, automotive mechanics) tend to make more money right out of graduation than those with a music or science degree anyway, which I have to say from my perspective, I agree. So this is my question: are we leading a "generation hobbled by debt" as the Times puts it into poverty because of our societal emphasis on the white collar jobs instead of the blue collar jobs?

As an aside, I can't believe that girl in the article with the $120,000 student loan debt didn't a) go with the federal government as the borrower or b) tried to see if some kind of repayment plan was available. It read like she resigned herself to the $900 bill every month and not try to find some sort of easy repayment plan. I have a $132,000 student loan, and through a repayment plan, my bill is $100 a month because I chose an income contingent plan instead of a electing to go with a standard plan. And anything that isn't paid after thirty years of continual monthly payment is forgiven. The fact that the federal government bends over backward to try to find some sort of suitable arraignment and yet the student loan situation is to the point that a bail-out is possibly considered shows how stupid students are in evaluating where they need to go and what their payment options after graduation. It also shows how inept our society has become in terms of trying to find one's chosen vocation.

ampersand wrote:So this is my question: are we leading a "generation hobbled by debt" as the Times puts it into poverty because of our societal emphasis on the white collar jobs instead of the blue collar jobs?

From my perspective, it seems like the problem is the idea where you have to go to Stanford or whatever, and if you go to a "no name" college (or worse technical school), you won't succeed in life. It's sad, really.