**** Elections thread *****

[Jack Sawyer]

What "experts"? Are you suggesting that there is a definitive right/wrong determination on whether income inequality is a good thing or a bad things? Because there isn't. There's substantial debate supporting both sides. My personal preference, is to have income inequality along with income mobility. If there is no mobility, then inequality sucks. But if there is mobility, and you're not happy with you're income, you can do something about it. That's awesome.

Do keep in mind that this can lead to an increase in crime as well.

Do you want a better paycheck? or do you wanna be just a little bit better at high school algebra than everyone else?

This is not mutually exclusive. How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

[BananaStand]

Do keep in mind that this can lead to an increase in crime as well.

I guess, but that's a really convoluded connection. Yes crime and poverty are linked, but who says that those at the bottom of the income inequality scale are actually "poor". They could just be "poor-er" than those at the top. I mean, a 'poor' household in America still has three TVs, two Xbox's, and a leased car that's probably nicer than mine.

This is not mutually exclusive. How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

I don't get the question. I had to google Mr. Schmidt to find out who he is. Seems like he grew up with pretty successful parents. I'm not sure he's a great example of "income mobility". Oprah is a better example. She was a good student, mostly through hard work and parental oversight. And translated that into mobility from a life of abject poverty....to being fucking Oprah.

Would her work ethic have gotten her that much mobility in Finland? I would guess not.

[Jack Sawyer]

I guess, but that's a really convoluded connection. Yes crime and poverty are linked, but who says that those at the bottom of the income inequality scale are actually "poor". They could just be "poor-er" than those at the top. I mean, a 'poor' household in America still has three TVs, two Xbox's, and a leased car that's probably nicer than mine.

Not as convoluted as you may think. See, being upwardly mobile in theory, being marketed as such, and yet in practice making it absurdly hard, will lead to increases in crime in my opinion. Not everyone has the fortitude to grind in against all odds, and will take the easier road. It is easier, yet more risky, but with tremendous profits.


This is one of the main reasons why I’m a firm supporter of leveling the playing field and make it at least as easy as possible to get a proper education for everyone that would like one.


As Mojo correctly pointed out some posts back, it should be cumpolsory up to a certain point. You just have to expect a few things from your populace these days. Also, a well educated populace is much more difficult to fool, wuf.

I don't get the question. I had to google Mr. Schmidt to find out who he is. Seems like he grew up with pretty successful parents. I'm not sure he's a great example of "income mobility". Oprah is a better example. She was a good student, mostly through hard work and parental oversight. And translated that into mobility from a life of abject poverty....to being fucking Oprah.


Would her work ethic have gotten her that much mobility in Finland? I would guess not.

Yes, but that was not my question to you. My question was:

How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

[wufwugy]

Not as convoluted as you may think. See, being upwardly mobile in theory, being marketed as such, and yet in practice making it absurdly hard, will lead to increases in crime in my opinion. Not everyone has the fortitude to grind in against all odds, and will take the easier road. It is easier, yet more risky, but with tremendous profits.


This is one of the main reasons why I’m a firm supporter of leveling the playing field and make it at least as easy as possible to get a proper education for everyone that would like one.


As Mojo correctly pointed out some posts back, it should be cumpolsory up to a certain point. You just have to expect a few things from your populace these days. Also, a well educated populace is much more difficult to fool, wuf.





Yes, but that was not my question to you. My question was:

We want the same things.

[Jack Sawyer]

We want the same things.

I have come to realize this. We are just in some disagreement on what is the better way to get there

[BananaStand]

Not as convoluted as you may think. See, being upwardly mobile in theory, being marketed as such, and yet in practice making it absurdly hard, will lead to increases in crime in my opinion. Not everyone has the fortitude to grind in against all odds, and will take the easier road. It is easier, yet more risky, but with tremendous profits.

What do you mean "against all odds"? How hard is it really to earn a living and not steal?

It is a fact that in America, 90% of the people who live above the poverty line share three common traits. Conversely, 90% of the people who live below poverty are missing one or more of these three traits. They are:
1) Finish high school. It doesn't have to be a good school, the stats make no delineation for quality of education. You just have to show up.
2) Don't have a baby until you're at least 21 years old
3) Have that baby after you get married.

Schools are open and it's legal to buy condoms. What's "absurdly hard" about that?

Yes, but that was not my question to you. My question was:

Probably pretty good. Still not seeing your point though.

[Jack Sawyer]

What do you mean "against all odds"? How hard is it really to earn a living and not steal?

It is apparently very hard for a person who has absolutely nothing. Be desperate enough and you are going to get forced to take desperate measures. This compounded with the media always glorifying the lives of the haves, the phenomenon of predatory lending and debtors prisons, etc. You end up with people with immense thirst of upward mobility, but no real way to get there legit.


But I’m going off course there.

It is a fact that in America, 90% of the people who live above the poverty line share three common traits. Conversely, 90% of the people who live below poverty are missing one or more of these three traits. They are:
1) Finish high school. It doesn't have to be a good school, the stats make no delineation for quality of education. You just have to show up.
2) Don't have a baby until you're at least 21 years old
3) Have that baby after you get married.


Schools are open and it's legal to buy condoms. What's "absurdly hard" about that?

Sure. However, two key determinants for premarital condom use is religiosity and education level. Too much religion or too little education both lead towards inadequate condom usage, ergo undesired results. Parents are also key determinants on both these things. Politicians (mostly right wing) are also crucial factors on the lower condom usage rates because of religion.


Massive catch-22.

Probably pretty good. Still not seeing your point though.

Great. Do you believe that if he wasn’t any “probably pretty good” at high school algebra, he’d still be in the position he is now? Do bear in mind that he has a PhD in computer engineering.

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't get the question. I had to google Mr. Schmidt to find out who he is. Seems like he grew up with pretty successful parents. I'm not sure he's a great example of "income mobility". Oprah is a better example. She was a good student, mostly through hard work and parental oversight. And translated that into mobility from a life of abject poverty....to being fucking Oprah.


Would her work ethic have gotten her that much mobility in Finland? I would guess not.

Probably not. But failure to be Oprah would not mean living in poverty in Finland. As we know, not everyone is Oprah. And you do not need a billion dollars to live well.


Oprah paraphrases Seneca the Younger: “I feel that luck is preparation meeting opportunity.” She has demonstrated to be an extremely “Lucky” woman. There’s a reason why there aren’t many Oprah’s, other than perhaps JK Rowling.


But yes, do prepare yourself for if and when the opportunity does arise is perhaps the most important single piece of advice anyone can give.


Plus, she has a book club bearing her name. Smart is in books. Read a ton of books, and that makes you de facto smarter than the average non-book-reading Joe. Does she read the books of her book club? Is she actually an avid reader? Important questions bearing asking, actually.

[BananaStand]

It is apparently very hard for a person who has absolutely nothing.

I don't believe there are very many people like that in the US or in Finland. Poverty means something entirely different in developed countries. Like I said, a poor household in the US probably gets more cable stations than I do.

Massive catch-22.

I don't really see it that way. It's not like condoms are hard to come by. Also the religious argument is iffy. I find it hard to believe that a sinner would brazenly embrace premarital sex but then draw the line at prophylactics. My point is, that the American system is set up so that virtually anyone, regardless of class or status, can achieve "average". If some choose to squander it with horrible choices like dropping out of school, or having babies that they can't support, I don't see that as a failing, or even a shortcoming, of American education.

Great. Do you believe that if he wasn’t any “probably pretty good” at high school algebra, he’d still be in the position he is now? Do bear in mind that he has a PhD in computer engineering.

Still not seeing your point. If he wasn't good at algebra, that wouldn't necessarily be his undoing. His aptitude for math and science led him to a certain career. If he was better at sports and arts, maybe he'd be in a different career. That doesn't mean he'd necessarily be less successful. Unless he lived in Finland, which was my point about Oprah.

Probably not. But failure to be Oprah would not mean living in poverty in Finland. As we know, not everyone is Oprah. And you do not need a billion dollars to live well.

Ok, if this is how you feel, what's your point about Schmidt?