American income equality

Just 158,000? I figured it would be more than that.

When will people address the issue by what brings it about in the economy that you have a problem with rather than being upset about the cause?

>someone says the issue that brings it about is greed

One is incredibly intelligent and creates value for the economy, while the other does a remedial task that anyone with a functioning brain can do. I do not have any problems with this infographic.

I guess hedge fund manager is a better career choice if you wanna make money then.

those hedge funds manage a lot of pension funds for teachers...

Literally anyone can teach kindergarten.
Literally anyone can teach primary school.
Literally anyone can teach high school.

It's the main reason why the Education System is so fucked to begin with. Anyone can do it, so the value drops, so those who COULD make a difference and do the job 'well' don't, or if they do they do it at high paid private schools that respect and aknowledge their skill and superior teaching abilities to the average 21 year old slut thinking "IM GOING TO SHAPE YOUNG MINDS BY READING AND TEACHING A STRICT GOVERNMENT APPROVED SYLLABI~"

> high risk high skill job that doesnt have many open positions
> job that any healthy human can do, many people want to do it for the amount of money that is offered, many open positions
wow neurons wooooowww

>those digits confirm:

Gas the teachers.
Class war now.

>income equality
Believing it possible.
"Wait, I could spend 9 years of schooling to become a neurosurgeon or drop out of high school and be a janitor for the same wages?!"

>inequality is bad
why?
trade doesn't require the transfer of wealth from one party to another, it creates wealth

you have something I want, I have something you want
what you have, I want more than what I have
what I have, you want more than what you have
we trade and we are both wealthier because of it

basic econ you fucking google

Income equality is fucking stupid, not every job should pay the same. Some jobs are harder, require more hours or more education, or are just flat out more valuable or require people who are considerably smarter than your average teacher. It's stupid to argue that an investment banker (super selective field requiring 80-90 hours of work per week and is very high stress) should make what a kindergarten teacher makes. Income inequality is not only logical, but it's good because everyone being paid the same amount would stifle hard work and innovation. What really matters is income mobility (the ability for a hardworking, smart, well educated person to move to a higher income bracket).

Your point?
You do realize that those kindergarten teachers are paid from tax money, and rich people pay a disproportionate share of taxes.

this is why equality was a mistake
I have no problem with treating people equally but this liberal delusion that everything must end up equal will literally lead us to communism

It think it will be more like
>You need a B.Sc. In electrical engineering with 5 years work experience to apply for this job as a janitor.

This is also why socialist countries often go bankrupt.

If you're just redistributing wealth, how can your country possibly go bankrupt? Oh yeah, people who would normally produce and create stop doing it.

Meritocratic inequality is fine

Daily reminder that Fascism is the Third Position and would liquidate all these fucking parasite bankers and bourgeois rich cocksuckers who send their spoiled brats to private schools to learn to evade taxes

>we need to pay teachers more because they teach our children, the future

Oh yes, thank you so much for sitting in a room with my kid all day, doing such a great job. It's only because of our great teachers that our education system is ranked so well worldwide.

Actually, you're probably not right, if we pay the same shitty teachers twice as much, they'll magically start doing better.

>One makes makes millions of people millions of dollars
>The other is now a glorified baby sitter
>Some how they should all make the same about of money.

>Home schooled
>Played RuneScape all day
>4.0 in college
Feels good man

Do you even need skills to be a kindergarten teacher. Don't you basically just teach them the alphabet, give them some juice and let them take a nap?

>kindergarten
>literal baby sitting
>getting paid more than $20/day

We've got to do something about this

That isn't a problem with equality, that's just people being stupid. The only thing the government guarentees you is equal treatment under the law (ie. equal rights and privileges like stuff in the Bill of Rights, property ownership (the ability to own property, not that everyone has the same amount of property), marriage rights, etc.). Communism sounds great in theory, but it does not translate well to the real world, and unfortunately some people just don't understand that.

I wouldn't necessarly say that of socialist countriesm but certainly of communist countries (though that may be due to the fact that in general communism only takes root in shitty countries with large poor populations like much of eastern Europe or south/central America). I don't support socialism, but I wouldn't say that it leads to countries going bankrupt.

No, lol, you just need to be good with kids.

Actually apparently there's a lot more too it than that. After all, it is the most important time for brain development in a child. If being a kindergarten teacher would easy, they'd just be called a daycare. If you don't teach a child right at the early stages, it'll only get more and more retarded from there on out

Sure it seems trivial to us who have gone beyond kindergarten, but that's because our brains have developed properly

Nothing wrong with that famm
Hedge fund manager's provide a valuable service to the rest of society whereas kindergarten teacher's only spout liberal propaganda.

Hedge Fund managers produce nothing real, they just skim off the top of rich dumbasses. In fact, most passive index funds beats hedgefunds. Education is a real service, granted, America is not the best in this regard.

>kindergarten teachers deserve as much as CEOs
The value of your work is determined by the consumers, not by some leftist-elitist retards
an hero

>Communism sounds great in theory
I don't even agree with this, I wish opponents of Communism would stop granting them this
Communism is literally state ownership of business, you are not allowed to conduct business freely (two consenting adults not allowed to do something with one another), that's a horrible system to advocate for

See Kindergarten is proven to be an essential stage in childhood development. The real debate is whether preschool or pre-k are worth the money (since the difference in IQ becomes negligible after a few years). The difference in intelligence between a kid with a good kindergarten teacher and a kid with a bad kindergarten teacher is astounding, even if they've shared teachers for every year after that.

When you're that size, your brain is growing in overtime.

I went to a public high school in a small southern town. It was great. Stfu.

In the private sector, you get paid a portion of the money you bring in for your company.

In the public sector, you get paid whatever the government decides you're worth.

If the state will own my business the moment I create it, why would I ever create a business?

Communism will never work. People say to failed communism either "they didn't do it right" or "that wasn't true communism". When communism comes into reality and not these liberals stupid fucking heads where can control millions of people's emotions and needs it falls apart and becomes a shithole almost immediately

preschool/pre-k are so braindead easy a stay at home mom could do it, get that bitch out of the workplace, SHAPING A LIFE is so much more fulfilling than working 9-5 as a secretary just so you can pay to send your kids to daycare

>Mr. Shekelstein is such a great guy!

When people say capitalism has failed I say no country has ever tried real capitalism. You should see their head explode.

I think I have memories of my kindergarten teacher helping me wipe my ass, not sure tho.
Anyway, thanks Ms. McLaughlin

>That much money is going to glorified day care workers
Shameful

Not really, actively managed funds do worse on average than market indexes. People who pay these managers are cucks.

>Communism is literally state ownership of business
SOCIALISM is literally COMMON (public) ownership of the means of production.
FTFY

Communism is a synthesis of the Hegelian dialect that Marx proposed. It's the final conclusion of class warfare. Communism requires a lack of a state, common leadership, and a lack of democracy

Other than that, you're right. Socialism doesn't even work on paper. It lacks the price system of a free market in order to properly convert information about the scarcity of resources leading to deadweight loss. It's inefficient on paper, has been long before it was tried at a national level

Depends, what did you major in and did you go to a grade inflation school? Some majors it's easy to get a high gpa in, and some schools inflate gpas with averages around 3.7 (that's the case for every ivy league except Princeton, I think). On the other hand, many majors are more difficult (STEM excluding biology) and some schools deflate gpas (most flagship state schools and top tech schools (MIT, Caltec, etcl). Basically, a 3.5 in chemical engineering at MIT is harder than a 4.0 in english at Harvard.

See

eh, I don't think anyone claims that capitalism will solve all the world's problems, I'd say "failed at what?"
it's definitely the most morally defensible system in the world

>le glorified baby sitter

If it's so easy then you do it. I'll laugh when a bunch of 8 year olds give you the business.

>it's definitely the most morally defensible system in the world
What are you talking about? The entire reason the free market is so efficient is because it's amoral. It's not moral, it's not immoral. That's the beauty of it. People are free to discover the most efficient way to achieve satisfaction
There is no "right" and "wrong" in capitalism, there's only profit and loss. That's why capitalism is efficient

See

>not spreading your white seed with a white female

You're part of the problem mate.

I think it does sound great in theory. Everyone does whatever it is that they love to do and is paid and able to live without being taken advantage of by others. In theory, state ownership is only a halfway point in communism.

I agree with you, ultimately, communism doesn't take human nature (specifically laziness and self serving) into account.

>Kindergarten teachers
>Kindergarten

Their job isn't exactly fucking hard.

>Everyone does whatever it is that they love to do and is paid and able to live without being taken advantage of by others
That's not at all what communism is. You don't get to do what you love, you get to do what the collective needs of you. Communism isn't about doing what makes you happy, it's about doing what's good for the whole. That's why communism requires a lack of democracy, because democracy rewards self serving interests. In communism, there are no self serving interests. Only the interests of the commune

Ffs read some Marx

See

Every single kindergarten teacher has/had/will have the choice to become a hedge fund manager, if they are successful, they may become part of the top 25. After all America is a free country where everyone is free to pursue their dreams. I don't see a problem with this. It's evolution. Some will become top predators and some will stay bottom feeders.

there's no coercion necessary for the economy to function if there's capitalism, that alone is more moral than any variety of state controlled economy

That's getting into normative economics, which is a fringe field only discussed by politicians. I'm talking about positive economics, which is the study of the way things are, not how they should be

The stock market is a jew meme that /pol loves to take up the ass.

Thats communism in theory. Because everyone makes the same amount of money you don't need to get a day job to pay the bills. Because the government (I guess?) would pay you the same to be a doctor, you could be an artist and not have to worry about your food expenses. Basically, if you are interested in medicine, then you could be one of the sociey's doctors, if you like art you could be one of the artists, if you like driving you could be one of the truck/cab drivers, etc. That's why I said it sounds good in theory. Naturally, it doesn't work that way the second you try to actually implement it, but for edgy college students this thought never pops up.

What is your point?
If you can make a distinction between kindergarten teachers that well, make a company and employ only the best kindergarten teachers and you can pay them as much as you want... eeeew you've just ruined your argument for income equality by locking out the not-so-good teachers.

source?

>not spreading your DNA
>being an endpoint
>being a disgrace to life and your ancestors

Holy shit, kindergarten teachers make pretty decent money int he US. 54k.

While this is technically true, it's a kind of trivial point. The state isn't making you work, but if you want to eat and afford a house you will. The free market is effectively coercing you to work. That said, the free market can't put you in prison (well, you could argue debtors prisons) or torture you because you're a dissident.

Holy shit, you've never even graduated highschool have you?

What the fuck do you think Marx meant when he said "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
Do you think he was suggesting everyone can do whatever they want and the government will provide everything?

No, he was suggesting that the people unite to eliminate the government and the people provide everything. You don't get to choose what you do for work anymore than you get to choose how much you get paid. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. That also means people aren't fucking paid equally dipshit.

You're not even talking about communism because you don't even know what communism is.

>caring about glorified babysitters

The hedge fund managers create value for wealthy people, it's called economics. Literally the lowest on the IQ spectrum among college students become teachers. They're all liberal arts majors looking for easy jobs. I had a friend of mine complaining that her job at a day care pays shit despite the fact that she has a college degree. I had to explain to her that her degree in human development is not that valuable and her job is not hard.

...

>to learn to evade taxes

Tax Evasion - the illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax.

Tax Avoidance - the arrangement of one's financial affairs to minimize tax liability within the law.

One is common practice and acceptable and the other is illegal. Learn the difference and count yourself among the smart people who minimize their tax liability. You don't have to be from old money to get tax advice. Or you could just be a dumb fuck your whole life.

t. an accountant

I went to college for mathematics, actually. What I mean by everyone can do what they want is that everyone can pursue the career they really want to do. There would be no trade off between your passion and paying the bills.

> You don't get to choose what you do for work anymore than you get to choose how much you get paid.

He never actually said that, you're pulling it out of your ass.

> From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs

It's almost as if he is suggesting that people should pursue the career paths they are good at and passionate about (which would make them most likely better at their job).

> That also means people aren't fucking paid equally dipshit.

That's a trivial difference. With taxes and everything out (the government taking from each by his abilities and giving to those by need) you effectively make the same.

I honestly don't understand why you're being such a dick, but you're pulling out trivial differences, when it is abundantly clear what I'm saying, and that what I'm saying is all a part of communism.

this implies that there are enough people who have a passion for medicine to treat everyone in society

turns out that isn't the case, lots of people become doctors because it pays REALLY fucking well, why do you think so many of them are jews?

i think you already agreed though that it doesn't work "in practice" not sure why you're still defending the idea

I went to college for mathematics and got my masters in economics. It's very evident you've never even read the Manifesto.

He wasn't proposing everyone should follow their passions. That's what capitalism and democracy is for. He was proposing we should ignore what we want as individuals and focus on what we need as a society.

Seriously, communism was designed for the industrious. Lenin would fucking chokeslam you if he heard your interpretation of communism.

I highly doubt you even went to school for mathematics. Give me a quick proof that the harmonic series is divergent to back up your claim

If the kid isn't being taught properly by the parents no good quality kindergarten is going to fix them. People that come from shit households will not be saved by teachers.

But the reverse is also true, kids with bad teachers won't be saved by good parents

hedge funds are pieces of crap which only serve to destroy the economy.

Translation:

>I don't understand stocks and numbers scare me. I pooped my pants. Gonna buy me some more bullets, gold, and canned food herpa derp

I don't know any that make that. Over the road truckers typically make more. My brother taught high school and made about $36-38K a year.

Not really true. IQ is mostly genetic. Some bad teachers will not make you stupid, just as good teachers will not make an Einstein out of someone born with a lesser intelligence cap.

>be kindergarten teacher
>so dumb that your job is to teach kindergarteners
>invest none of your money
>you don't earn much money

>be hedge fund manager
>choose a career specifically to make as much money as possible
>invest a shit loads
>in the end you earn a lot

>choosing not to fulfill your only purpose in life

Literally kill yourself

Translation:

>Keep throwing money into the casino that promotes bad business decisions and raises the prices of commodities for no reason.

I wonder...

He's not defending the idea because he doesn't even have a clue what the idea is. Hes literally making shit up.

Let me break it down
>From each according to his abilities
If the state needs something from you, you bet your ass you're gonna do it. Need more lumber? Grab an axe. Need more coal? Get in the mine. If you try and avoid your duty to the state by claiming you're an artist, you'll end up in a fucking gulag

>To each according to his needs
The community decides who receives what, based solely on the concept of whoever needs it more deserves it more.

How is this so hard for you to understand?

>Some bad teachers will not make you stupid
Empirically untrue between kindergarten and 4th grade.

2 geniuses can have a child and keep him uneducated and guess what, hell be uneducated. A bad teacher in high school won't hurt a developed brain, but between the ages of 5 and 10 the entire foundation for your brain is built

Easier said than done

That's just because of how inefficient the government is

stop turning to the government to solve all the world's "problems"
??????

Probably not a good idea to make it larger then.

Never said we should

>creates money
Top kek. Good one m8

Never said it was

The best thing the government can do is restrict it's own influence.

The relationship between the government and the citizens are like a person walking a very large dog. The government is the dog. It's purpose is to protect its owner (the citizens) from harm. The owner can give the dog commands, and sometimes the dog will disobey.
However, the best thing we can do is leash train our dog, not try and sprint to keep up with his power. Even though we own the dog, the dog can still pull us in ways we don't wanna go

>high paid private schools
Public school teachers make more than private school, dude.

The fact that you call it a casino just proves my point.

>I don't understand numbers, all them fancy tickers just moving in random directions herpa derp

It's called buying good value investments and putting more money in when it crashes instead of at the peak. Not the meme-status retards who buy in at the top and lose their life savings by dumping in a panic. You are a retard.

SHART IN STOCK MART

If you have good parents who are engaged in your life, a couple of bad teachers will not make you stupid. Obviously if you dump a baby in the woods it's going to be a fucking retard. I can't stand you people who think that we just need more school funding and everyone will end up smart. That's not reality.

>you people who think that we just need more school funding and everyone will end up smart
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Also I said was that those years of childhood development are crucial, and this is empirically observable. Therefore, kindergarten teachers aren't just glorified babysitters.

All* not also

Oh, I thought this was suggesting kindergarten teachers are being payed too much. That's the impression I got. I didn't realize people thought babysitters diserved to be payed as much or more than then an actual member of the workforce.

See You people are a problem to society

this is an 18+ site

Why do you care what teachers are paid on the other said of the world? Have you basically just admitted that the world revolves around the USA?

Richer people spend less money as a percentage of their income. Less money circulates the economy. Hurr durr its economy 101

Relying on the state to educate the precious mind of your children. Two words: Homeschool...you would have to be stupid to let your kid go through the public education system and if your not smart enough to teach your own kid then you've failed as a parent.

> this implies that there are enough people who have a passion for medicine to treat everyone in so

I'd wager that there are at least that many people. The majority of doctors do have a passion for medicine, otherwise they would have had a hell of a time making it through medical school and then residency.

> He was proposing we should ignore what we want as individuals and focus on what we need as a society.

He never says you can't follow your passion. It stands to reason that in such a theoretical civilization that individuals would be allowed to follow their passions (so long as they help the civilization as a whole) and perhaps even encouraged to do so as it would make them better at their job.

I agreed that it doesn't work in practice, but I truly to do believe that it sounds great in theory.

As I wrote above (to someone else) and explained in my last comment, the government would be incentivized to allow individuals to to follow their passions (so long as the job it leads to would be a job the the civilization needs) because someone who does what they are passionate about is generally better at the job than someone who isn't passionate about it. You wouldn't end up in a gulag because in theory gulags wouldn't exist. Keep in mine that this discussion is based 100% on theoretical communism and not communism in practice. I admit that communism sucks dick in practice, but it sounds great in theory.

> The community decides who receives what, based solely on the concept of whoever needs it more deserves it more.

Which would be equal in theoretical communism. Come on, it really isn't this hard. Stop deflecting and dropping ad hominems because you don't understand how theoretical capitalism works.

Which you never sourced even though I asked for a source earlier.

The conservative delusion is that liberals want complete equality. There's a certain amount that is good and we're not even close

>It's stupid to argue that an investment banker (super selective field requiring 80-90 hours of work per week and is very high stress) should make what a kindergarten teacher makes.

I don't think most people talking about income inequality being a problem would argue that. They're galled by the sheer size of the inequality, not the concept itself. You're taking it to an absurd extreme as if people are saying everyone should be paid the same.

embols.com/2016/09/25/iceland-forgives-entire-population-its-debt-total-us-media-blackout/

As for the proof, you do this most easily by contradiction. You assume that the series 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... = X (if converges to X). We know that X = 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 ... >= 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/8 + 1/8 ... = 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 ... =1/2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 ... = 1/2 + X. Because X >= 1/2 + X is false, we have a contradiction, thus the series diverges.

Also, what the fuck do I have to prove to you anyway? You're the dipshit who doesn't understand communism. You're so full of shit, your eyes are brown.

prove it and also explain why that fucking matters, you don't think their money is just sitting in a big ass gold vault do you? they invest that shit
plus trade creates wealth
you dumb fucking libshits think money is some kind of zero sum game where rich people are hoarding shit just so they can say they have more than you

>liberal sees that women don't earn the same as men
>ask for legislation to fix this when biology is literally why there's an earnings gap
no, equality of outcome is a plague and I'd prefer that you don't perpetuate it

so money has literally nothing to do with people becoming doctors
why are they paid so much then?

But hedge funds are giving money to Hillary, so shut up... Also, Soros funds BLM, so don't be racist... Kindergarten teachers are privileged, so, fuck'em...

You've literally never even read the Communist manifesto and yet you're trying to teach people what communism is. They're not ad hominems, they're verbal attacks. I'm not saying you're wrong because you're stupid. I'm saying you're wrong and you're stupid.

Why are you talking about what he did and didn't say when you literally don't know what he said? You're just repeating what you've heard from someone who was repeating what they heard. Like I said originally, read some fucking Marx.

>because someone who does what they are passionate about is generally better at the job than someone who isn't passionate about it
Marx's whole position is that it's not about people being dissatisfied with their work because they would be better at something else. He thought people were dissatisfied with their work because they didn't own the product of their labor.
He never said workers should quit and follow their passions, he said workers should revolt, overthrow the capitalists, and then get back to work.

Communism isn't about doing what's best for you, its about doing what's best for everyone. Sure you might be an incredible dentist so you propose being the town dentist, but Marx did not propose people should pursue what they are best at. He proposed people should pursue what is best for the state. So if the state needs thT great dentist to work in a factory, then that dentist is best served by working in that factory.

You have capitalism too ingrained in your thoughts. You're proposing individual utility should supercede the states requirements. This is exactly what Marx was trying to fight. You're literally arguing against Marx and saying his theory works

Read the fucking Manifesto

Do you not fucking understand how easy it is to obtain a degree to teach kindergarden, or to teach 6 year olds?? What the fuck?

A first year investment banker makes $80-120k. A first year teacher makes about $37k. It is 100% reasonable that someone working 2x as much as a teacher should make 2x what the teacher does. This compounds over time. If you continue working this hard over a long period of time you will make more, so your earnings will continue to increase relative to the teacher's salary. That doesn't even take into account the fact that being an investment banker generally requires a high gpa in a moderate/difficult degree (moderate being anything business related, hard being STEM), whereas being a teacher doesn't require either. That also doesn't take into account competition either.

The fact of the matter is that some people matter more than others. Some careers are more important (or more precisely generate more money and therefore are paid more (think professional athletes and actors in this specific case)). I've never understood why people think teacher should make so much. I think they should make more, but definitely not $100k unless deep into their career with a graduate degree.

Obeying the law but paying less taxes than the middle class is still wrong

You're fucking retarded.

L O L

Not an argument

Rich people pay the most taxes in this country. Over 40% of tax receipts are from the highest earners. If you really think a rich person pays less than a poor person, you're delusional

> so money has literally nothing to do with people becoming doctors

Not what I said. Most of the people who are able to make it through medical school and residency are those with a passion for medicine. That's why I say that there should be enough people who are passionate about it and would follow medicine without the money. Despite not being a doctor now, I probably would be a doctor in such a theoretical society.

I've read the communist manifesto, unlike you I understood it. You say you're not using ad hominems, but that is exactly what your post is here. You are attacking me without attacking any of my arguments.

> He never said workers should quit and follow their passions

He never said that one couldn't follow a career in his passion, and because that would probably make the person better at his job, it would make sense for the government to allow individuals to follow their passions so long as the passion serves the community. Also, we wouldn't need a whole hell of a lot of factory workers because of machines.

> You have capitalism too ingrained in your thoughts. You're proposing individual utility should supercede the states requirements.

Never said that. I'm saying it would make sense for the government to use individual strengths in order to best serve the community. God damn, this really can't be too difficult, how are you not able to understand?

No it isn't. It isn't illegal and good luck actually being able to prove that objective morality exists.

>He never said that one couldn't follow a career in his passion,
He said they couldn't if it was solely self serving.

You obviously didn't understand it, considering earlier in the thread you claimed that communism meant everyone can do what they want because everyone gets paid the same by the government.

Just admit you haven't read it, because it's becoming more obvious the more you post. The fact that you think the government even exists and people get paid in a Communist society proves you've never read it

54 large a year (plus full health and dental, and including three months of paid vacation), is not a bad salary for babysitting a dozen toddlers eight hours a day.

Investments are taxes at lower rates. Large corporations (what the rich mostly invest in) are also sitting on huge sums of cash. Their money isn't moving through the local economy but rather the global one.
Further, what about the indirect consequences? More impoverished people means more crime, lower health standards, and a slew of other shit requiring more government programs and more tax dollars to fix.
Do you think I'm making up that wealth inequality has major negative economic consequences?
conservitards like you are too sure of their bullshit positions to have a legitimate conversation with. I know, everyone who disagrees with you is completely retarded.
And regarding women, what legislation has even been proposed? I legitimately don't know of any.

Also, the difference between an ad hominem and a verbal attack is easy. An ad hominem is saying you're wrong because of [insult]. That's a fallacy because it ignores the argument

A verbal attack is saying you're wrong an [insult]. That's not a fallacy because your argument is being addressed. The Communist Manifesto is all the evidence i need to refute your argument, so I can call you all the names I want and my argument will still be valid.

Lrn2logic

Objectively, people who have the means to pay more taxes paying less than people without those means is wrong.
Lol. If you're argument ends with prove objective morality exists, you've lost the argument.

>I probably would be a doctor in such a theoretical society.
that completely defies logic

in this theoretical society you'd have less to gain by being a doctor, but you'd be a doctor in that society and not this one? LOL what the hell are you

>implying more people are impoverished just because there's more inequality
capitalism elevates everyone, even the poorest
you won't find the poorest people in india or africa with working toilets, refrigerators, tvs, easy access to wash machines, cheap-ish oldie cars, etc
don't tell me America's poor don't live relatively well, just because they aren't living as well as you doesn't mean we need to steal from the rich and give to the poor, capitalism has done WONDERS for our poorest class

>are also sitting on huge sums of cash
Very untrue. The amount of capital for a specific firm varies wildly. It becomes even more important to note that the amount of liabilities also vary wildly.

That's why the financial crash happened. Liabilities exceeded assets by a huge amount very suddenly coinciding with the housing market crash. This created a deflationary spiral that required a bailout and several months of QE3.It's called a Minsky money, or the wile e coyote moment (since you've already run off the cliff, but you don't fall until you stop and look down)

Point is, don't assume companies are just sitting on cash. Even large corporations have little available capital.

> He said they couldn't if it was solely self serving.

Duh, but as I've explained to you countless times that wouldn't be the case. Your passion would need to fit into what is needed for the community, but that still gives you a shitload of room to pursue your passion.

> You obviously didn't understand it, considering earlier in the thread you claimed that communism meant everyone can do what they want because everyone gets paid the same by the government.

I think you're problem is that you took that literally. I gave you enough credit for being able to understand that doing something like playing video games or something equally worthless wouldn't help the community and therefore wouldn't be allowed.

> The fact that you think the government even exists and people get paid in a Communist society proves you've never read it

It does in that the collection of every member of the society is able to enforce whatever they want and are therefore basically a government. Because nothing is privately owned, an object/property owned by the entire society functions the same as if it were government owned.

That's what your last post was, dumbass. You never provided an actual argument. You should check out reddit.com/r/iamverysmart, it looks like just the place for people like you. Unfortunately, you're too stupid to understand that I was right, and that your trivial 'corrections' (used very loosely) were never necessary. I highly doubt you even read a condensed version of the manifesto.

Sometimes I feel like we're living in an alternate dystopian universe. People in this universe completely forgot that Calvin Coolidge had literally everything right. Now it's just "I dug a really big hole and then filled it back up! That's a lot of work! The government needs to pay me!"

Like I said, he's never even read Marx. He's like the kid who has to give a presentation on a book he didn't read. I doubt he even knows what a Hegelian dialect is.

I'll give him credit for the harmonic series proof, although I purposely gave him an easy one so idk if he found it with a quick Google search.

Personally, I deal with statistics and time series,as well as actuarial models.

What do you mean objectively wrong? Do you have evidence that objective moral facts exist? If so, you must be the first person to have it. I'm sorry you want to believe something, but don't have the evidence for it, it must be really upsetting.

What evidence do you have that paying less in taxes when you make more money is morally wrong? Does it still hold if the reason you are paying less is because you've donated money to charity (tax deductible)?

>capitalism elevates everyone
No shit. Capitalism doesn't equal wealth inequality. Don't change the argument.
If you think America's poor live well, you've never traveled to any other industrialized country

Hedge fund managers aren't trying to turn kids into degenerate worthless sacks of autistic shit.

Fuck teachers.

>but that still gives you a shitload of room to pursue your passion
No it doesn't, because that's self serving. The populace can't automatically determine what people are most efficient at doing in any other way than the free market. That's because prices are necessary to convey information about scarcity. In a Communist society, there are no prices, so there is no information about scarcity.

This includes human labor. There is no way to determine what is needed for the community efficiently while lacking information about the scarcity of resources.

Also, saying I haven't provided an argument is committing an ad hominem, because you're avoiding my argument. I've presented it several times. You haven't read the Manifesto, Marx did not create communism in order for people to pursue their passions, and you don't understand what an ad hominem is.

That's 3 arguments right there. And I've schooled you in every one. Add a fourth victory because I just schooled you about your ad hominem

>googles killing each other in the ghetto are worse off than jobless people on welfare in denmark
well duh if my country's defense budget was paid for by another country I'd be able to house and feed everyone too

ANY other industrialized country? no, try China or Russia, their poor are far worse off than ours

Bruh
mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/magazine/why-are-corporations-hoarding-trillions.html?_r=0

I think Plato was the first to argue for moral objectivism
You're just using nihilism as an excuse to be a shitty person

Fair enough. I should have said countrise with similar GDPs per capita
The point is we can do much better. And I agree, we should cut the defense budget. It's a joke

I wasn't talking about corporations collectively, I was talking about them individually. Some hoard assets, and some rely on debt. The notion that they are all just sitting on cash is ridiculous

Besides, why wouldn't they hoard cash with interest rates so low?

> in this theoretical society you'd have less to gain by being a doctor, but you'd be a doctor in that society and not this one?

False. I'm an investment banker in this world (makes way more than a doctor, especially 10 years down the line), but I've always really been passionate about medicine. As a doctor, I wouldn't start making real money until the age of 28-30 (you make shit in residency), while if I stay with investment banking I'll make $500k +.

Communism doesn't say you can't be self serving, it just says that your ultimate goal should be help the community. The idea is that you can maximize your utility to the community by pursuing what you are passionate about.

> There is no way to determine what is needed for the community efficiently while lacking information about the scarcity of resources.

I know logic isn't your strong suit, but it would be reasonable to assume that such a theoretical society would exist in modern times if never stated otherwise. You've schooled me in nothing. You're an idiot, but unfrotunately you're also delusional. I bet you're an edgy teenager who thinks he's special and frequently 'corrects' people when they aren't wrong, then gloats, but secretly wonders why nobody likes him.

If we assume that inequality is definitely a problem, what's the solution to fix it?

>Communism doesn't say you can't be self serving
It literally does. Read the fucking Manifesto.

Also, if you're going to criticize my use of logic, you might want to do so while also not committing a fallacy.

Chapter 2 of the Manifesto. Read it. Then maybe read some Lenin or Trotsky. You'll learn just how wrong you are.

>I'm an investment banker
What kind of desk do you work at

Increase taxes on the wealthy. Close tax loopholes for them.

He claimed it without ever proving it. that's the problem with philosophy. It is non-scientific and allows you to just assume things. That's how many philosophers were able to claim objective morality and the existence of god without actually proving them.

I'm okay with closing tax loopholes, flat tax all the way baby
the highest tax bracket is already 40% though, that's already far more than their "fair share" as the dems like to put it

You mean my group (S&T cal them desks)? I'm in an industry group, healthcare. When I first started I wanted to do a product group ideally lev fin, but I M&A was attractive too. I also had an offer with a different bank in restructuring, but I chose to work for a BB.

Problem is, government is notorious for malinvestments at rates way higher than private institutions. Giving them more money to spend would only fuck up the economy.

The reason tax rates have been decreasing is because wealth has been increasing, so federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained fairly constant since the 40s. We adjust rates to make sure the government can only take so much money out of the economy. Giving them more money won't solve anything

There's no reason to fix something not broken.

This why Calvin Coolidge is my favorite president. He had the courage and wisdom to do nothing when nothing needed to be done.

Hurr durr it'snot wrong because nothing is wrong. Catch-all bullshit like what you're spewing basically makes it worthless to talk to you

Oh, no. I was talking about the kind of wood.
I'm an FSA currently working on my CFA, but woodworking is my real passion
People in nice careers like us usually have nice desks, and I was just curious

This is why we must lower taxes! 8.5 billion for our teachers! What is this shit, a first world country! FUCK THAT!

>using tax rates to pursue social justice
How about no? Why don't we just keep taxes at the absolute minimum so that wealth flows through the public instead of the bureaucracy? When did we start begging the government to appropriate our funds? I'm going to put this out here: You have no way to justify what you just said without asserting some sort of foul play on the part of the wealthy.

See For why flat tax is a bad idea.
The only way flat tax would work is if there were a massive decrease in wealth disparity.

Hedge fund managers are overpaid, their meme funds are shit and they are basically conmen with an ego. But it never ceases to infuriate me when people act as if market forces don't exist in the labour market.

>REEEEE womyn are paid less in the workforce
>No they aren't, they just take lower-paid jobs
>REEEEEEEEEE they are lower-paid because women take them and muh patriachy tryna keep a sista down

>what is effective tax rate
>what is historical tax rates
I just don't understand why people constantly defend lowering the already ultra-low taxes the rich pay

enlighten me

>I just don't understand why people constantly defend lowering the already ultra-low taxes the rich pay
Maybe it's because the government still can't help but waste the money its given.

>comparing apples and railroad spikes

Because they could choose to not stay and pay no tax somewhere else?

This really just goes back to what I said about more money going into the economy. Money moving from the upper class to the lower class would do exactly that because poor people spend a higher percentage of their income.
Also, we're being irresponsible. If we're gunna spend a certain amount, we need at least that much in tax revenue. Dems will never let Republicans kill the programs they want to kill and Republicans refuse to raise taxes so we just defecit spend until our national debt is 20 trillion.

Where's the source? I want the paper, not some shitty articles that cites a paper.

And the methodology better be proper. You never know with fake sciences like sociology.

Oak, but as I understand it, the non-visible parts are probably made from cheaper materials. I'm actually considering getting a more modern looking glass desk at some point, but the one I have no has sentimental value because it was a gift from a friend of mine in the same investment group (think a fraternity, but with an actual university purpose: investing a portion (~1%) of the endowment) I was in. What's the ultimate goal with the CFA? Do you want to be an investment manager?

The rate of increases in wealth that the rich accumulate outpaces the GDP growth, and so keeping their tax rates high would just result in a higher level of federal tax receipts as a % of GDP. It's giving the government way more money to spend. As of right now, I think the government is spending too much, so let's restructure our budget before we restructure our tax code

>raise taxes

Hahahahahahahahahaha

This was meant for:
Not
You're retarded. I already made the point that the ultra-rich's money doesn't "flow through the economy"

No

My cousins are home-schooled. My retarded aunt has raised them to be booger-eating faggots that can't handle adversity. Fuck homeschooling.

>waste
What don't you like?

So tell me. How much do you pay in taxes if you make say a million dollars a year. Do you even know?

If you give a man a dollar and he spends that dollar then he's spent one dollar. If a quadrillionaire spends 15% of his income, he's doing more for the economy than anybody in the middle class could hope to do in a lifetime.

Actually it's just to make my prospects of becoming CFO for my company better for when he retires in a a few years. I'm definitely the best actuary they have, but since I don't have seniority I need a competitive edge.

My desk is actually one I made myself. Walnut with maple inlay. Boss thought it was weird but nobody complained since the company didn't have to pay for it.

A few coworkers have actually hired me to make them stuff after seeing my desk, so I'm pretty proud

The fact that we spend more on Social Security than the Department of Defense, for one thing. We spend more on Social Security every year than we've given NASA over the entire course of its existence.

But money from the government is absolutely put back into the economy. You can argue that it's inefficient but it does go back. Look at the Military Industrial Complex. Millions of jobs created by the gov't. Welfare and other social programs do the same thing.
Cutting the budget is easier said than done. Wanna kill social security? Good luck. The elderly are the only religious voters in the USA. Wanna gut the military? But muh ISIS. Wanna gut medicare? Good luck. The sheer amount of people using it is a huge voter block.
In my eyes, tax increases to cover our deficit is the only realistic option

Are you trying to insist that a child around the age of 5 isn't going to be greatly impacted by the aptitude of thier teacher?

If the entire economy is 100 dollars and there are 10 people. 9 of them have $50 and the 10th has $50 too. 9 of them spend 97% of their $50 while the 10th spends (let's use your number) 15% of his. Yes, he's still spending more than any individual person but he's not moving the amount of money through the economy that he would if he spent more. Get it?

>more government to fix the problems a big government caused
let's not

It's all about who votes. And guess who it is. Old people.

First (You) Best (You)

Fair enough, CFO is a good position. I've never been a corporate executive (well, I was EVP and CFO in my parent's company (not a big company, it was just the two of them and it owned a store) fresh out of college, but because I did virtually nothing for the position I obviously don't put it on my resume), but I imagine the leadership aspect would be nice. I'm an associate, right now, so I have some authority (over the analysts), but not anywhere near that of an executive. Well, I'm going to bed, I need to be at the officer in 4 hours.

Stupid oversimplification

I don't think that any of that is relevant to what I said. I don't care whether the old or the young are causing this issue.

The economy isn't some kind of circular flow. It's a dynamic, organic entity. We are the economy. And when we keep interest rates low by pumping money into the banks, guess what? That money will sit in the banks. It's called a liquidity trap.

When we expand credit to the point that our production can't keep up, suddenly people realize that everything is fucked. That's why it's called the boom and bust cycle. You need to fear the boom just as much as you fear the bust.

As soon as that money sitting in the banks starts entering the economy because of rising interest rates, the velocity of money will explode. This iswhat people are worried about. We need to remove all of that money we pumped in from QE3 very slowly to avoid any economic shocks.

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine that they can design

dismissive liberal too stupid to argue

Forgot to mention, being able to have a hobby like woodworking is probably pretty cool. You get to do something you enjoy and you get a tangible benefit out of it (plus you can make money from it). My hobby is music (playing guitar), though I don't get to do much with it given the hours I work.

Jobs are a means, not an end.
The government could spend all of the money in the economy to hire every American citizen to dig a hole, and even though we'd get paid there would be no food to eat and everyone would starve.
Real growth is production of what people demand. Putting money into the economy inefficiently is called waste, and it is unjustifiable by nature

That's still 53k for each Kindergarten teacher.

Here, the average Kindergarten teacher earns between about 35k. Keep in mind that half of that is taxed.

Half of the posts are mine. I'm not gunna hold your hand through an argument though

My point is, we should look at feasible solutions. Gutting SS is not a feasible solution. Tax increases are.

I haven't bought anyone a single birthday/Christmas/etc. Gift since the 90s.

Agreed. However, putting money into the economy inefficiently is better than not putting it in at all.

>Get it?
The lower class spends its money differently than the upper class. It's foolish to imagine that your 9 people would be of more benefit to the economy. The 10th man settles his wants and needs before investing his remaining funds. The 9 people merely settle their needs. You aren't honestly going to try to suggest that investing one million dollars into the stock market is a less important deed than spending ten thousand on your immediate needs, are you?

Neither are
SS is different from government spending due to the nature of its trust fund. What really needs to happen is fiscal restructuring by streamlining beaurocratic processes. They waste money on the stupidest shit, but when you ask them to spend less they argue about the important shit

>Gutting SS is not a feasible solution because old people don't want it.
You're going to have to turn back and take another pass. You've failed to prove your point.

>income equality matters because muh socialism. marx was a good kike guise!

>However, putting money into the economy inefficiently is better than not putting it in at all.
This is incorrect. It would be very difficult to explain to you why without teaching you an extensive background in microeconomics, so just know that saving is better than wasting. This is true for every case.

It's literally called inefficient because it's not better than anything. And that's including having it sit in banks

Which part? That tax increases are a feasible solution to ending our deficit? Is this even debatable?
OR That SS is not going anywhere because the elderly are the biggest voting block in the US

That's sort of a talking point, honestly. What sort of inefficiency are we talking about?
You hear a lot about entitlement program cutbacks but theyre really just talking about gutting Social Security and medicaid

It's just as important for the world economy.
It's less important for your particular country. Multinational corporations are doing a lot less good for the US economy than national ones. However, all blue chip stocks are multinational.

Tax increases are not a feasible solution to end our deficit. We have had a tax and spend government since LBJ. We cut taxes just to keep spending in check. America is growing faster than the government wants to grow. Giving them more money won't help the situation. They already get plenty of money. Let's just have them spend it more responsibly

And once you split that money up among everyone you think deserves a piece they hardly get anything
Population increases and job loss are far more pressing issues with greater economic impacts than taxing a a few dozen idiots

You can't just fail to support your argument and then present your own. You aren't entitled to do that. You made an inane and nonsensical point about old people, then tried to move the goal posts when I pointed out that it didn't influence my argument at all. Your obligation is to go back and defend your insufficient point.

You might be right. My previous argument wasn't very well thought out.

Oy vey, (((they))) aren't going to like this post.

>Let's just have them spend it more responsibly
Again, there is your problem. You want to cut spending but I've already made the point that unless politicians are willing to gut SS, Medicaire, the military, it just isn't realistic.
However, increasing taxes would bring in more tax revenue, squeezing the annual deficit. Do you disagree with this as a fact or just disagree with tax incerases as a general rule?

Inefficiency as in creates deadweight loss.

Opportunity costs aren't just monetary. That's an accounting cost. Opportunity costs are the value of the best possible alternative you're giving up. By choosing to do something, you're giving up the option of the thing you didn't choose. This is true for everything in the economy. Hell, it's true for human behavior. When you chose to hit snooze on your alarm in the morning, your cost is the time you're continuing to sleep and the best possible use of that time. You're basically saying that sleeping those extra 5 minutes are the best possible use of that time when you make that decision, in order to maximize your utility.

Apply this concept to the economy as a whole, and we're getting somewhere

LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE

Maybe I misunderstood. Youre saying that what you don't like about gov't spending is SS, correct? I assume that you'd like to cut it rather than raise taxes. I made the argument that that is simply not going to happen because it would require political pressure. And old people (the ones who recieve social security) are the biggest voting block, meaning they can use that clout to keep social security going. Because of this, saying gutting social security as a feasible option to lowering our deficit doesn't seem realistic to me.

I don't want to cut spending, I want to cut malinvestments. The government is a participant in the economy. The economy is a much larger and more powerful entity. The question is how much the government causes trouble for the other economic agents

Since when were we talking about the "world economy"? Do you think that the US should give away its wealth since it's so much wealthier than, say, Uganda?

Give me some particulars of "bad investments"

>2012
>2014
How can you even compare these. Inflation bruder, you fucking retarded?

You didn't make any argument about political pressure. You said "we have it because of old people" and left it at that. Make your points completely in the future. Don't expect me to read your mind.

Besides, we aren't living in some tyranny of the elderly. Their decisions aren't final and can easily be overruled.

Wut. No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that joe schmo spending his dollar at the local store has more of a positive effect on the local economy than warren buffet's dollar invested in a company opening up manufacturing plants in India

The government spends over $1 billion every year to pay farmers to not grow crops/destroy the crops they've grown in order to keep the price of produce high enough to be profitable. Been doing so since the great depression

That's just off the cuff. There are countless examples. Government spending is notoriously inefficient. See pic related

actual fucking retard

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Obviously it could be, I just think that realistically, social security isn't going anywhere

Why are you assuming that the wealthy invest more in foreign companies than in the US? Why are you making the additional assumption that this somehow makes their contributions to the US stock market less than what is contributed by others?

Lol I saw Warren buffet the other day at lunch. He spends plenty of his money here in Omaha

People used to think that slavery wasn't going anywhere either.

The stock market is not what drives the economy. The stock market is merely the vital signs of the economy.

Ehhh, there's actually a lot of good reason for that specific one. We're a huge exporter of produce (I think #1) and keeping prices higher helps us. Plus, government involvement in farming is meant to keep the boom-bust cycle of crop prices at bay.

I'm not even referring to foreign companies. I could be talking about Ford, Apple, Google, or any other blue chip US company. They're all multinational

And without investment those vital signs flatline. Same with lower class labor. Neither can comfortably exist without the other. This does not mean that the two efforts are equal.

if you're an individual and you do this then yeah

but if you're operating a fund it means you can trade risk in/out of your portfolio

this makes particular sense for companies where they're trying to hedge against market volatility

Pffft his house costs less than 1million. What are you even talking about

Lol. Talk about moving the goalposts

>Kindergarten teachers
Literally babysitters, a 14 year old could make a decent kindergarten teacher.

We weren't talking about companies. We were talking specifically about wealthy individuals.

Manipulating prices creates deadweight loss though. Sure there are reasons, but these are politicians not economists.
And like I said, it's just one of countless examples. All of those shovel ready jobs (my brother calls them Obama jobs)
Taking taxpayer money to hire a person to stand at a construction site holding a slow down sign is wasteful and inefficient when compared to just sticking the god damn sign in the ground. But who cares as long as those jobs numbers look good.

Like I said, jobs are a means, and real growth is production of what people demand. The people know what they want a lot better than the government thinks they know what we want

Rather than trying to turn the argument to slavery, I was merely pointing out that permanence is often an illusion.

Visit the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting sometime. It's huge for our local economy. Not quite as much as the college world series, but a lot of money gets spent.

Besides, if you knew Omaha, youd know that there are no homes that are a million dollars. There are some that come close, but those are rare in the city. You have to drive out into the farmland to find the mcmansions, and even they're relatively cheap

>neurosurgeon
>only 9 years
Try again dumbass

If you do not invest in stocks or bonds at the very least conservatively. You are either uneducated in finance or poor or both.

Stocks are an excellent way to make money and investing in a fund is a simple way to get around having to do independent investing. The rates of return are far more excellent than banks (whom only give you the top off the extra)

And if you invest well in stock, you get rich far faster than if you were to only invest in a business. To be clear i am talking a 10% investment of income in stock and continual reinvestment of dividends and sales/covers.

Literally if you ride the oil waves well, you can earn your monthly income in 3 days. There is risk with everything but to be so jealous of rich people is pathetic.

The real problems that enable these fuckers to milk everyone else are poor trade deals like NAFTA and welfare which destroys the economy and so renders the stock cheap (for mass buyouts like mexico, 70% owned by 1 person).

Who are the people who care about income inequality? Is it not like you are going to be that bad off if you just put in the efforr. Follow your passion, put in the work, and you'll probably be successful in whatever career you choose. People just want to skip the first part and be successful just for being born.