Then we should not attempt the goal of everyone having equal opportunity to succeed? Random circumstances can't be helped, but opportunities beyond that can.

So what do you propose be done about that? And what do you think the consequences of removing the incentive to actually work would be?

I don't know, the book wasn't written about them. The line the author decided to draw in order to call someone "wealthy" was a net worth of over $10 million. He could have made it $9 million, or $25 million, but he didn't. I think he chose that number because most everyone would agree that someone with that net worth is most likely wealthy.

I have too much to read already, and since you seem to have the book already, I'd think it wouldn't be too much of an effort for you to look up the research method and definitions used.

From the same page:

Right, so what do we do?

I say the government establish a first class public education system. Not good public schools for the rich kids and shitty public schools for the poor. We raise the standards for teachers and start paying them what they are worth.

Throw a better, more effective public health system that can be accessed by all into the mix and maybe then we can start talking about equal opportunity.

Also, spend more money on public libraries and public broadcasting as well.

What about those that are simply middle-class at $40k and their children that "inherit" nice safe communities, clean streets, clothes, food. They don't earn that, they're given that.

That's a disctinct advantage. I know, because I had all those things and I knew people that didn't.

However, I won't make excuses for lazy people who don't want to learn and have no willpower to try and change their situation.

Australia does have a bad history of racism

So, someone whose parents had a net worth of, say, 5 million, is counted as "first generation wealthy" if he reaches $10M+?

:1orglaugh

Yes we do. :(

Right, for forcing Aboriginal kids to attend school like white kids already had to. Boo-hoo. If they didn't actively get them educated then that would have been accused of being racism as well.

I am saying this because this episode is the racism whine that always comes up in regards to Australia. If there is something else then correct me.

Racism in Australia went far beyond simply forcing Aboriginal kids to attend school like white kids.

Murder and appropriating land were common

Stop talking about Australian history because you know nothing.

Read about the Stolen Generation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation

Don't deny the fact that if they hadn't done anything for them, then you would have accused that of being racism as well. You are doing it today. When black kids aren't attending school to the same degree as white kids, do you know what is touted as the cause? Racism! Always.

There's a big difference between doing nothing and forcibly removing them from their parents.

Don't forget forbidding them to speak their language or practise their culture.

Yeah, that too.

If that is the case, then that's fucked up.

While we're at it, we might as well mention that Aboriginal people were prevented from entering hotels, from marrying without permission, and from living within town boundaries. Aboriginal workers also had their wages held in trust by police or mission managers who gave out 'pocket money' as they saw fit.

Hey, don't get me started on your native Americans. :winkwink:

But a fact that pisses you welfare touters right in the face is that no matter who you are or how poor you are, there are always jobs up for grabs that may not be very rosy, but that will get you through the day very well and even allow you to save up money, unless you are a stupid fuck who spend your money on drugs or alcohol and then whine about being poor.

In fact, if you strip me of all my possessions and contacts today, and deny me from getting a computer or a job with education requirements, then I will have a rented apartment and two or three perfectly doable jobs (newspaper routes, cleaning, etc) within a month. And I am in Norway. We have a 10% higher average salary than in the states, and in return all goods and services cost three fucking times as much.

Poor people who don't suffer from some sort of physiological or psychological condition are poor by choice.

About the numbers CET quoted: if what I think is going on here is correct, the numbers are utterly useless.

It looks like the book he quoted used a set standard of $10M net worth for defining wealth.
If that is indeed the case, one only has to take a quick look at the time period between the measurement of parents' net worth and that of their millionaire children. Let's put that at an average of 20 years, shall we?
The book he's talking about is from 1998, I believe, so let's say the parents' status of "wealthy" or not was based on their net worth in 1978, and that of the wealthy children on numbers from 1998.

$10M in 1998 has the same purchasing power as ~$4M in 1978. So, if you take $10M+ for the parents in 1978 as a standard of being "wealthy", you should use $25M+ as the standard for defining "wealthy" in 1998. Otherwise, equal or even diminished purchasing power combined with inflation will have created most of the "first generation wealthy".


This is just one possibility - although one that seems quite likely right now - but it clearly shows why most numbers from either side can't be taken for face value without knowing the research method and such.

exactly

thats, right, thank you, i wasnt being completely literal, this is just a simple story that can show the most basic form of what most democrats want, higher tax percentages for the rich

both sides play the games and someone always gets fucked

Do you have a large population of black people? Were they enslaved for 200 years followed by another 100 years of legislated racism and groups like the KKK?

cry me a riverrrr

The line has to be drawn somewhere and that's simply where this author chose to draw the line of "wealthy". I've already been through this, and if you still don't get it then you're just being willfully ignorant.

How about you stop talking out of your ass and actually read the book instead of sitting around trying to shoot down something that you know nothing about. I quote a couple of statistics from it, you decide you don't like it and therefore it must be discredited. How about you get off your ass and GO READ IT! Only then will you be able to speak about it with ANY authority.

I don't want to speak about your book with any authority. I don't care about the book, actually. I am not planning on reading it, simply because I currently have a list of several hundreds of books I still have to read.

What I am responding to are your statements. You use a random number from a random book as an authorative source, yet fail to give a rough outline of the research method used, and your only comments on the definitions used imply a major flaw in that method.


I can get almost any random statistical number I want on any subject whatsoever from some book written by some professor somewhere in the world. For example, this week, I read in a book by an American professor in sociology that my country is racially almost entirely homogenous.

actually - it was less than 13%, like 12.8 or so.

2.2 points makes a big difference when you are paying on over 5 Mil.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, yes. However, drawing that line at a certain amount of money without any other specifications is fairly stupid.

First of all, relative wealth is a much more important factor in determining mobility within society (and that was the context in which you quoted the statistic) than absolute wealth, for obvious reasons. So, a better line would be "the richest 10%", or something of the sort.
Secondly, determining absolute wealth by a set amount of money instead of inflation-corrected purchasing power is positively bizarre.


If you're gonna use statistics as arguments, you should be able to explain and justify them as well.


I think the problem isn't that I'm being willfully ignorant, but that you're being unintentionally ignorant.

Regardless of whether a person inherits their wealth of works for it, the point still remains: Everyone has and has had the same opportunity to be wealthy for quite some time now.

Second-generation wealth still comes from a first-generation who was more ambitious than a poor second-generation's parents.

No one will ever convince me that in today's day and age they weren't given the full opportunity so suceed, regardless of race.

:1orglaugh

This equal oportunity stuff just keeps on making me laugh.

Is this what they teach you Americans in school?

From the people who brought you 'liberty and justice for all' comes 'equal opportunity'!

The argument is silly.

If you made your money in America you will honor your country and pay your fair share. Fair share for the rich is much higher than fair share for the poor, so either get over it and honor the country that gave you the opportunity to make your money or simply move out.

Out of the 30 strongest nations in the world, in their rankings of taxes, America is 29th out of 30. Americans pay the second lowest taxes in the world amongst the 30 strongest nations in it.

30 is Mexico and I assume things are not going so well there since they get shot up everyday trying to escape over our border.

Anyone who argues about paying their taxes is simply ignorant and obviously has no idea how the real world is operated.

United we stand divided we fall, if we all do not pay our fair share this country will fall, plain and simple.

Maybe you assholes who do not want to pay your share of taxes can move to Mexico. :1orglaugh

What are you 12? I'd highly suggest you research that theory a little bit more and look further than your own backyard while doing so.

Are those the only factors that would determine that Australia has a bad history of racism?

Spreading the wealth in that fashion is a very far left idea and most liberals won't go for something like that.

Thank you they always try to make it on simple terms and its not simple. Also most of them dont pay their fair share to begin with.

everyone has equal opportunity in this country, only different obstacles. it might be true someone coming from a rich family can get there faster and easier, but it doesnt mean a poor person cant make it there aswell. i know from reading your posts you hate this country, so if you believe this or not you will still disagree in a poor attempt to belittle us.

Wake up and take a look around.

You are a victim of propaganda.