patrick.net

Stay relevant you useless fucks!
Nobody gives you shit for free 'cept in Venezuela.

rando says

One explanation could be that very heterogenous societies like the US naturally have a greater variety of innate talent. Inequality of outcome does not necessarily imply inequality of opportunity.

I don't think youre a liberal anymore Patrick. This is one of the more conservative statements I've read on Patrick.net.

When CA goes all out communist mentality, being anti that is just common sense of preservation. Why would we want America to fail same way all other socialist "paradises" have?

More educated and more wealthy parents can give their children a good head start. They have more funds for educations, may not need student loans, contacts to get them their first jobs, assistance to buy their first homes. The poorer kids start off at a disadvantage, and struggle more.

Generally - having 2 parents who stick together to combine incomes and resources to raise children is the biggest advantage a child can have.

This shouldn't be shocking.

But big government Liberals have spent the last 30+ years doing everything they can to break down traditional families and substitute it with the State. And they act surprised when we see widening income inequality and generational poverty.

IQ is thought to be 50-80% genetic.
And the environment part is also favoring richer people.

anonymous says

Greater numbers indicate less mobility. Then it's not generational earnings elasticity. It's generational earnings inelasticity.

rando says

Inequality of outcome does not necessarily imply inequality of opportunity.

That's true, but economic positions in America have always been highly based on nepotism and cronyism. And those two things due imply inequality of opportunity.

Opportunity is clearly unequal in America. Always have been. Maybe it's going down a bit, but it's a constant struggle. Human nature is to try to concentrate wealth and power into those with similar genetic code, i.e. family.

Quigley says

Life's not fair.

Is this a surprise?

If the fact that life is not fair means that no injustice should be opposed and no systemic problem solved, then I take it you would have no problem with the government seizing all assets of the rich and redistributing wealth. After all, that wouldn't be fair either.

Dan8267 says

Quigley says

Life's not fair.


Is this a surprise?

If the fact that life is not fair means that no injustice should be opposed and no systemic problem solved, then I take it you would have no problem with the government seizing all assets of the rich and redistributing wealth. After all, that wouldn't be fair either.

SUre.. but from the graph.. no country seems to have figure out the solution.. The only option is to reduce inequality with higher taxes
But the point of higher taxes is that it reduces GDP. So it would be interesting to compare the graph above with GDP / capita

BrownIncome says

no country seems to have figure out the solution..

Most problems are not technically hard to solve, but politically hard. The people in power don't want the problem to be solved because it's not a problem to them, it's a revenue stream.

I would say the solution is to abandon the mechanism of letting people own production means and automatons and then dictate wages based on that. We should move to a system where one's income is determined entirely and only by one's productivity. There are many ways to move towards such a system such as eliminating rent seeking, moving from wages to shares and letting indepent agents, particularly A.I. determine shares.

Fucking White Male says

rando says

One explanation could be that very heterogenous societies like the US naturally have a greater variety of innate talent. Inequality of outcome does not necessarily imply inequality of opportunity.

I don't think youre a liberal anymore Patrick. This is one of the more conservative statements I've read on Patrick.net.

Major problem: The regressive Left can not recognize a liberal anymore.

The left no longer knows what liberal means.

Dan8267 says

I would say the solution is to abandon the mechanism of letting people own production means and automatons and then dictate wages based on that. We should move to a system where one's income is determined entirely and only by one's productivity.

Where have we heard this before?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

Your Commie/Marxist/Authoritarian stripes are showing again Dan.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

I would say the solution is to abandon the mechanism of letting people own production means and automatons and then dictate wages based on that. We should move to a system where one's income is determined entirely and only by one's productivity.

Where have we heard this before?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

Your Commie/Marxist/Authoritarian stripes are showing again Dan.

That is the most idiotic, self-contradicting post on PatNet.

The very phrase "to each according to his needs" is completely antithetical to what I proposed, "one's income is determined entirely and only by one's productivity". I guess you're the commie/Marxist/authoritarian here. In their purest forms, capitalism differs from communism only in nomenclature. This is why you are opposing something antithetical to what you claim to oppose.

lebowski522 says

The left no longer knows what liberal means.

Did it ever?

Dan8267 says

We should move to a system where one's income is determined entirely and only by one's productivity.

There is no fixed quantitative way to evaluate the productivity of people, for ex: engineer, vs worker vs marketer.
The best way we have is the labor market: evaluate scarcity of skills and pay more for the scarcest.

Heraclitusstudent says

There is no fixed quantitative way to evaluate the productivity of people, for ex: engineer, vs worker vs marketer.

The best way we have is the labor market: evaluate scarcity of skills and pay more for the scarcest.

Companies already don't pay more for labor than it brings in. The ability to determine how much wealth a person is creating is already done every day and has to be already done for business's to work.

Furthermore, capitalism does not equate to paying people according to the scarcity of skills, but according to bargaining power. Far more people can run a business than write software, yet it is far more profitable to run the software company than to do the much harder and much more productive work of creating software. That's just one of countless examples.

Capitalism does not equate to free markets in general. The last thing owners want is a free market as such markets eliminate economic profit. Owners want inefficient markets because only inefficiencies allow for economic profit. Thus capitalism creates a perverse incentive for those with money to corrupt government or to use their economic power to transform efficient markets into inefficient ones. The attempts to end net neutrality is a perfect illustration of this.

As for ways to evaluate the productivity of people in different fields working on the same product, give deep learning a year to study the data and you'll have an automated system for doing that which works better than any human being possibly could. This is not a problem that is technologically difficult to solve. The exact same problem has been solved many times in many fields from marketing to warehouse automatons. Do you really believe that computers are incapable of doing math? It's kind of what they are best at doing.

Dan8267 says

The very phrase "to each according to his needs" is completely antithetical to what I proposed, "one's income is determined entirely and only by one's productivity". I guess you're the commie/Marxist/authoritarian here. In their purest forms, capitalism differs from communism only in nomenclature. This is why you are opposing something antithetical to what you claim to oppose.

You are leaving out "Each according to his ability".

You think that some all powerful Government bureaucrat or regulator should be able to dictate wages.

That's Communism on stilts.

Never go full-Commie Dan.

Life is not fair Dan. You best get over it

Dan8267 says

rando says

Inequality of outcome does not necessarily imply inequality of opportunity.

That's true, but economic positions in America have always been highly based on nepotism and cronyism. And those two things due imply inequality of opportunity.

Opportunity is clearly unequal in America. Always have been. Maybe it's going down a bit, but it's a constant struggle. Human nature is to try to concentrate wealth and power into those with similar genetic code, i.e. family.

It is naturally difficult to escape your environment. Why should you believe you can be a rock star when you look around and see your aunts and uncles, neighbors, and peers are crackheads, drunks, or unskilled laborers? But it is of course not impossible. My father could not attend high school. The oldest of 11 kids with a disabled dad, he had to earn money for his family. My mom only had a high school degree. But I have college and grad school degrees, and am much wealthier. My older brother is roughly the same as my folks, in spite of his liberal arts undergrad degree. But you have to be a bit bold to think you can be different, IMHO.

Dan8267 says

I would say the solution is to abandon the mechanism of letting people own production means

Ah the socialist mind never strays far from this concept. Hello Cuba.

FortWayne says

Life is not fair Dan. You best get over it

No one in life gets everything they want. No one. It's the losers who just whine every single day blaming something or someone.

FortWayne says

Life is not fair Dan. You best get over it

Again...

Dan8267 says

If the fact that life is not fair means that no injustice should be opposed and no systemic problem solved, then I take it you would have no problem with the government seizing all assets of the rich and redistributing wealth. After all, that wouldn't be fair either.

So Fort Wayne, would you be OK with that unfairness? If not, you are being hypocritical.

Just because life is unfair does not mean we ignore injustices and don't attempt to correct them making the quality of life better for all in the long run.

This is why the conservative right sucks are running government. They don't even try to make things better. They give up by lazy, stupid bums. They refuse to innovate.

Meanwhile, when we liberals see a problem, we see an opportunity. That's why we are better at business.

Dan8267 says

I would say the solution is to abandon the mechanism of letting people own production means and automatons and then dictate wages based on that.

Strategist says

Ah the socialist mind never strays far from this concept. Hello Cuba.

1. What I described is not socialism.
2. Cuba is communistic, not socialistic.
3. Cuba does not use the economic system I described or anything remotely like it.

If you cannot understand these things, then your opinion is based on ignorance and has no value.

Strategist says

FortWayne says

Life is not fair Dan. You best get over it

No one in life gets everything they want. No one. It's the losers who just whine every single day blaming something or someone.

If Al Qaeda flew airplanes into buildings, would you say anyone arguing that we should retaliate is a loser who's whining? What hypocrisy! When a problem doesn't affect you, it's whining to acknowledge the problem's existence and seek solutions. When a problem does affect you, it's a duty that the government fixes it.

Anyone decent at business would see a problem as a challenge and an opportunity. The fact that you fail to see this problem as an opportunity for improvement tells me that you are lousy at business. You have defeatist attitude. Winners don't give up.

Dan you have no idea how dumb your argument is.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Life is not fair Dan. You best get over it

Again...

Dan8267 says

If the fact that life is not fair means that no injustice should be opposed and no systemic problem solved, then I take it you would have no problem with the government seizing all assets of the rich and redistributing wealth. After all, that wouldn't be fair either.

So Fort Wayne, would you be OK with that unfairness? If not, you are being hypocritical.

Just because life is unfair does not mean we ignore injustices and don't attempt to correct them making the quality of life better for all in the long run.

This is why the conservative right sucks are running government. They don't even try to make things better. They give up by lazy, stupid bums. They refuse to innovate.

...

FortWayne says

Dan you have no idea how dumb your argument is.

The only dumb argument is asserting someone else's argument is dumb and then not being able to explain why.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

I would say the solution is to abandon the mechanism of letting people own production means and automatons and then dictate wages based on that.

Strategist says

Ah the socialist mind never strays far from this concept. Hello Cuba.

1. What I described is not socialism.

2. Cuba is communistic, not socialistic.

3. Cuba does not use the economic system I described or anything remotely like it.

If you cannot understand these things, then your opinion is based on ignorance and has no value.

Your comment..."abandon the mechanism of letting people own production means"
That is a form of socialism and communism.

Strategist says

Your comment..."abandon the mechanism of letting people own production means"

That's not my comment. My comment was
Dan8267 says

I would say the solution is to abandon the mechanism of letting people own production means and automatons and then dictate wages based on that.

A sentence fragment means nothing because it has no context.

Strategist says

That is a form of socialism and communism.

Communism and socialism are completely different things. If you don't understand that, your opinion on this subject matter means nothing.

Furthermore, neither socialism nor communism have anything to do with incomes being determined based on wealth production like I proposed. In fact, basing income on wealth production is antithetical to both communism and socialism. You really should understand this. It's not that hard.

Dan8267 says

No one in life gets everything they want. No one. It's the losers who just whine every single day blaming something or someone.

If Al Qaeda flew airplanes into buildings, would you say anyone arguing that we should retaliate is a loser who's whining? What hypocrisy! When a problem doesn't affect you, it's whining to acknowledge the problem's existence and seek solutions. When a problem does affect you, it's a duty that the government fixes it.

Anyone decent at business would see a problem as a challenge and an opportunity. The fact that you fail to see this problem as an opportunity for improvement tells me that you are lousy at business. You have defeatist attitude. Winners don't give up.

Read my comment again...."No one in life gets everything they want. No one. It's the losers who just whine every single day blaming something or someone." The point is to appreciate what you have. If you can't, you will never ever be happy. Happiness is a state of mind.

Strategist says

The point is to appreciate what you have.

Appreciating what you have is not mutually exclusive with fixing problems. In this case, the problem does not even affect me as I'm well off. That doesn't mean I should have zero desire to see the problem fix. Have a little empathy, man.

Again, would you tell the military not to go after ISIS just because you were not personally a victim of terrorism? That would be silly. It's silly to ignore problems and let them fester just because they aren't affecting you right now or because "no one in life gets everything they want". That's a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. And it should be obvious to you that it is.

You have given us absolutely no reason why our society should not attempt to solve the problem of inter-generational poverty and lack of equal economic opportunity. Solving this problem, or even alleviating it, would increase the per capita GDP, decrease the number of dependents on welfare, improve the economy, and save tax payer dollars. If you were at all consistent with your alleged beliefs, you would be highly supportive of solving the problem brought up in the original post.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

That is a form of socialism and communism.

Communism and socialism are completely different things. If you don't understand that, your opinion on this subject matter means nothing.

Furthermore, neither socialism nor communism have anything to do with incomes being determined based on wealth production like I proposed. In fact, basing income on wealth production is antithetical to both communism and socialism. You really should understand this. It's not that hard.

What you have is a theory, from a layman's point of view. I have hundreds of theories. People need to believe it will work to adapt it. You should send your theory to Venezuela, those idiots are at rock bottom and have nothing to lose.

Strategist says

What you have is a theory, from a layman's point of view. I have hundreds of theories. People need to believe it will work to adapt it. You should send your theory to Venezuela, those idiots are at rock bottom and have nothing to lose.

You clearly neither understand what a theory is or how it differs from a principle or what my beliefs are. You are letting your religious dogma -- and that is clearly how you treat economics, like a religion -- prevent you from even listening to anything that you consider heresy. As such, your opinion means nothing.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

What you have is a theory, from a layman's point of view. I have hundreds of theories. People need to believe it will work to adapt it. You should send your theory to Venezuela, those idiots are at rock bottom and have nothing to lose.

You clearly neither understand what a theory is or how it differs from a principle or what my beliefs are. You are letting your religious dogma -- and that is clearly how you treat economics, like a religion -- prevent you from even listening to anything that you consider heresy. As such, your opinion means nothing.

Your theory or whatever you want to call it is just a form of socialism. We are have something better. No thanks.

You aren't advocating fixing, you advocate what communists did in ussr, government forced equality of outcomes.Dan8267 says

Strategist says

The point is to appreciate what you have.

Appreciating what you have is not mutually exclusive with fixing problems. In this case, the problem does not even affect me as I'm well off. That doesn't mean I should have zero desire to see the problem fix. Have a little empathy, man.

Again, would you tell the military not to go after ISIS just because you were not personally a victim of terrorism? That would be silly. It's silly to ignore problems and let them fester just because they aren't affecting you right now or because "no one in life gets everything they want". That's a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. And it should be obvious to you that it is.

You have given us absolutely no reason why our society should not attempt to solve the problem of inter-generational poverty and lack of equal economic opportunity. Solving this problem, or ev...

Strategist says

Your theory or whatever you want to call it is just a form of socialism.

No, actually, by definition, it's not. You don't get to mislabel things just because you don't understand them.

Also, you are the biggest socialist here. You support current military spending, and that's socialism. Hypocrisy much?

Tall parents tend to give births to tall offsprings, who tend to be advantaged in basketball. Short parents tend to give births to short offsprings, who tend to live longer. Should government ban both tall people and short people for their respective "unfair" advantages? thereby banning everyone?

Likewise, IQ is highly heritable. Higher IQ people tend to make more money and be more successful in their lives, lower IQ people tend to be more easily content with their lives (i.e. subjectively happier, for the same level of material well being; unless they are disturbed by agitators). Should government ban both high IQ people and low IQ people? thereby banning everyone?

What exactly is wrong with children taking after their parents? What would be the point of mate selection if outcome were completely random and not affected by the characteristics of parents at all? We know good-looking people tend to produce good-looking offpsrings; would you want a government that mandates disfiguring all newborns just to make it "fair" for everyone? "Fair" to whom?

Why shouldn't height and good-looks be taxed if earning power is to be taxed? Should the law mandate all good-looking girls to be raped? just like people making more money are raped (the word came from "rapine" or pillage) in their wallets? This may not be an entirely academic question for hard-core Marxists, as it is the logic conclusion to a policy of making everyone equal in a biological world where females are hypergamous (they choose mates based on unequalness, the very basis of mate selection, one of the primary drivers of evolution.)

Capital goods ("means of production" in Marxian lingo) have to be privately owned because the benefit of capital goods is not ownership/consumption but what to do with it. "Public ownership" of capital goods just means conferring such decision power to monopolistic bureaucrats who are not subject to market competition. Private ownership of capital goods means there can be competitive ownership: open transparent bidding on the decision power as well as displacement of existing capital goods by new capital goods embodying better technology. The economic effect of robots is fundamentally no different from mass production lines. Private ownership in the West allowed better and better cars made in the West catering to consumer demands, whereas "public ownership" of manufacturing lines in the Soviet Union meant they continued to make 1940's car models well into the 1980's! making the jobs of bureaucrats easier at the expense of the general population, who had to suffer from the resource misallocation.

Applying absolute "equality" (i.e. "levelers" at the time of American Revolution) to capital goods ownership in a population of unequal IQ's is a stupid idea, as that would just make some people "more equal" than other people in an even more monopolistic way, a la Animal Farm. At any given time, everyone's IQ is never the same. Otherwise, there wouldn't be evolution. IQ is heritable; otherwise, there wouldn't be evolution and human society/species wouldn't improve. People being different from each other, and having different outcomes (both economic and non-economic) due to the differences, are fundamental to progress and improvement.

OTOH, social agitators tend to make things worse by transferring economic decision-making power from higher IQ people to lower IQ people, while making lower-IQ people unhappy by pointing out the notional "unfairness" in their otherwise relatively content lives. It is much easier to decide what's better for oneself than deciding what's better for someone else; the best thing lower/average IQ people can do is selecting which smart phone to buy for himself/herself instead of voting on how to make the next generation of smart phones. Let the high IQ people / geniuses decide how to make the next generation of smart phones, and then let the rest of the population decide which to buy for himself/herself among numerous competing offerings . . . instead of "public ownership" monopoly by a few tyrannical high IQ people mandating which exact model everyone in society is allowed to have.