-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
National yearly allotment [W 387]
- Thread starter JC Callender
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,253
- Reaction score
- 10,566
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I have demonstrated my understanding of Murray well enough to defeat your Murray-esque arguments for many years in this forum, let alone proving I have read him...and anyone interested can search them out, but then this is just another example of your need to produce false argument. It is the same as arguing in absolute terms the flat, stagnate wages of mid/lower quintiles while ignoring the larger point, their insignificance compared to past 30 years...or worse, the gains of the top. Wages are the base for our standard of living, not what gadgets are available.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,654
- Reaction score
- 39,917
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
:lamo. No you haven't. It ends with others bringing out data and you calling people racists. Because you don't know what you are talking about.
[emoji38] says the man who tried to respond to losing an argument about whether or not incomes have gone up by starting an argument about Charles Murray.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Messages
- 39,389
- Reaction score
- 10,060
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
We lack proper regulation in the healthcare industry. In some facets we have too much regulation, but the reason for excessive cost growth is more likely due to a lack of regulation.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,253
- Reaction score
- 10,566
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You know, the tell is your deleting the link to all of my references to Murray on this forum. I don't have to prove anything to anyone else, no one else is demanding proof of what I have read of Murray, and most of what is linked to involves our debates on Murray. It is self defeating to argue I have not read him....when our debates include you and me quoting him. Derp.
My responses included a reference about your well established Murray bias that permeates many of your posts, it rears its ugly head anytime you start spouting of about "culture" of the lower quintiles. I didn't force you to bring up "culture", you can't help it. You have chosen to not debate my points on the contrasts of wage gains, instead you want to debate my reading list of Murray...and to focus on blaming "culture", a Murray dog whistle. If you don't want to talk about your Murrayisms, then debate the disparity issue. "Culture" has not caused the declines in wage gains.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,654
- Reaction score
- 39,917
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
[emoji38] you continue to refuse to say what you have read (because I am right), and you continue to try to pivot from your (failed) earlier claims about the economic performance of the middle by goalpost-shifting.
Yes, culture is important. It doesn't control us, but it does push. If you want to ever read Murray on something (so that you can actually know what you are talking about), try Coming Apart on this.
In the meantime, who cares how well the rich do? They seem to be doing alright.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,122
- Reaction score
- 14,553
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
One there is no excessive cost growth. We have been over this. Its counter to your meme but its simply true.
whats ironic is that in a thread about economics, and education and who is making money.. you want to reduce the industry that spreads the most money out and props up the most jobs and has the most middle class jobs.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,253
- Reaction score
- 10,566
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
False, I have linked to what I have read, and I have read more than I care to remember, your accusation lost its grip.
Just like our many Murray debates, I prefer wage discussion, you like to debate income....because you favor supplemented income, means tested assistance, rather than increases in wages.
No, it isn't, jobs are, "culture" is just a Murrayism for blaming the victim.
I have read enough of it, and the criticisms, to know it is horribly flawed. Tell me, has he yet relented in his denial of IQ gains of Blacks?
Anyone who doesn't want a return to Gilded Age inequality....and anyone who wants to hold them up as examples.....the later...being.....you.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,253
- Reaction score
- 10,566
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,654
- Reaction score
- 39,917
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Oh, you mean the link that leads to:
That link?
It's easy, Gimme. List out the books you've read.
:doh Actually no, the numbers I've been giving you are just income. Not post-transfer. Not supplemented.
Now, I think that that second measure is important. The after-tax after-transfer income is what people actually get, so if we are trying to actually help real live people, then that's what we'll try to focus on. If we are just trying to stomp our feet about Them Mean Old Richers, however, we won't.
People make decisions and decisions have impact. If you drop out of high school and have children out of wedlock, those are your decisions. If you choose not to work full time, that's your decision.
...so you went and read people who said he was just a big ole meanie and you accepted what they said uncritically, because it was easier than thinking
This would be the factor that he said effected all races? :roll:
Thank you, however, for validating my earlier point that you lack the actual ability to answer the arguments, and therefore revert to calling people who disagree with you racists. you racist.
That... doesn't really answer the question. Why should I care how well the rich are doing? They neither pick my pocket nor need my help. On the contrary, they seem to be doing me generally the favor of benefiting the society in which I live.
In the meantime, your earlier claims that median income had gone down remain incorrect
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,253
- Reaction score
- 10,566
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I'm not responsible for the fact that the search links are not persistent. But anyone can search "Murray" and input my username with the "posts" checked......well.....present company excepted.
Again, i read enough of Bell Curve, Apart, his weak mea culpa on racism in Bell, various articles, videos of him still in denial of Black IQ gains....and more importantly, criticism of his works....to know enough that what his critics say about him....are true.
The 42 income components are (the number corresponds to the number shown in the table footnote when you customize your own income definition):
Earnings (wages, salaries, and self-employment income)
Interest income
Dividend income
Rents, royalties, estate, and trust income
Non-government retirement pensions and annuities
Non-government survivor pensions and annuities
Non-government disability pensions and annuities
Realized capital gains (losses)
Social Security
Unemployment compensation
Workers' compensation
Veterans' payments
Government retirement pensions and annuities
Government survivor pensions and annuities
Government disability pensions and annuities
Public assistance (includes TANF and other cash welfare)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Veterans' payments
Federal earned income credit..
on and on....
There you go again with your pointless non-sequiturs....FFS!
More Murrayesque nonsense, avoiding the larger issue, neoliberal policies that have caused job losses since 1980.
Rumpelstiltskin time!...so you went and read people who said he was just a big ole meanie and you accepted what they said uncritically, because it was easier than thinking
Um, no....he denied the closing IQ gap of Blacks to Whites.....but then, I suppose I will have to repeat this again and again since you still can't understand it.
I call racists, racists, because they make racist statements, hold to racist ideas.
ad hom.
In your case, because you want to emulate them.
Well that is another way you view them, but that is the point, you don't want to address the concern I have with them, you are continuing to avoid the point I make.
As i said already, wages is my focus, if I became distracted with your income data and said something that has insignificant consequences, such is life....it is still a Pyrrhic victory for you.In the meantime, your earlier claims that median income had gone down remain incorrect
Gentlemen, let's keep it civil and avoid personal remarks.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,654
- Reaction score
- 39,917
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yes, and you know what they won't get? A list of the Murray that you've read, only the times that you have tossed his name out to try to divert from things like the fact that your earlier claims were incorrect.
:shrug: You have read those who wish to throw the race card because they do not wish to confront his arguments about the impact of policy on culture, and visa versa. That's why you won't list.
Now this is interesting. The table itself simply says income. I wonder what it means. Hm. When we go back to the main page, we find there is a tab labled "About Income".
Let's click on that.
Huh. What do we find out about income?
...Census money income is defined as income received on a regular basis (exclusive of certain money receipts such as capital gains) before payments for personal income taxes, social security, union dues, medicare deductions, etc. Therefore, money income does not reflect the fact that some families receive part of their income in the form of noncash benefits, such as food stamps, health benefits, subsidized housing, and goods produced and consumed on the farm. In addition, money income does not reflect the fact that noncash benefits are also received by some nonfarm residents which may take the form of the use of business transportation and facilities, full or partial payments by business for retirement programs, medical and educational expenses, etc. Data users should consider these elements when comparing income levels...
Hm.
You're the one upset about the fact that rich people are rich. :shrug:
Job losses, eh? What was the unemployment rate in 1980? Now?
feel free to list those books. Actually he pointed out that the results in both races are equally shaped by cultural decisions. But, then, you wouldn't know that, because you didn't read him.
Well, I've made the cultural decisions that generally mean I'll end up in the top half of the economic pile - I graduated high school, graduated college, got married before I had kids, work full time, and stayed married. Do I intend to become rich? I'm en route to becoming a millionaire.
But policy wise? I'm not concerned about how much the rich are making. It's not a problem for anyone, it doesn't cost us anything, good on them. I hope they all double their income in the next twelve months - more tax revenues.
That the upper quintiles have seen their incomes climb at a faster rate than others? Given. :shrug:
You claimed they were traveling in the opposite direction of reality.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,253
- Reaction score
- 10,566
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
FFS...I did just list in part what I have read of his works....and the criticism of his work! WTF do you want? Why do you insist on this pointless tangent?
Perhaps you should review the note on the data you linked to...it is CPS income data, hence the link to what is included in CPS income data.
I can't help the fact that you want to avoid debate with infantile comments like this.
I mention job loss from neoliberal policy, you bring up unemployment from 2 years, with a division of 36 years. Again, a non-sequitur. Why bother debating this with you when all you have left are pointless blurts.
Why do it again.....when you keep ignoring it? This isn't how debate is supposed to go, you are supposed to read, follow along and make concise, coherent counter....not to keep repeating a request already answered.
You are talking about something completely removed from what I am referring to, again, another pointless response.
You just proved my point, you want to emulate, ergo, you are interested in them, ergo you answered your own rhetorical question to me.....another bit of pointlessness.
Another falsehood, but then you are full of them.
Sure, that isn't a problem to you, it is a problem if others want to return to a set of policies to have all quntiles see equal wage gains.
No, I was not incorrect on wage gains. They have been flat, stagnate for the middle and have declined for the lower, while the top have skyrocketed. This has been the case since 1980, while in the 30 years prior wage gains were nearly equal in distribution. That is the reality, you don't care....and that is that.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,122
- Reaction score
- 14,553
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yes.. exactly.
- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,412
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You have a crystal ball that tells the future? cool. who is going to win the Superbowl?