Inequality

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24782
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Inequality

Post by thoreau » 01 Aug 2016, 20:26

Sort of related to what Painboy said, although women and minorities have mostly improved their incomes and living conditions the old-fashioned way, the Democrats have not been shy about taking credit for it. The goodie line is the wrong model for improving one's life, but it's the model that the political class has bragged about, and when they brag they mostly brag about giving those goodies to women and minorities. At some point, if you keep hearing the political class say "These other people have improved because we're helping them, and we're not helping you because you're privileged", a lot of people are going to take that in a non-stoic manner.

A narrative that's more like "You're doing about the same as ever because you're working as hard as ever, and now they're doing better because they also got a chance to work" would defuse a lot of resentment from some quarters, and actually foster more pride in other quarters, but it wouldn't give the influential classes as much to take credit for.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21675
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Inequality

Post by Mo » 01 Aug 2016, 21:28

Painboy wrote:
JasonL wrote:I know it to be a real thing in the world, but I don't relate in any way to the life as a goodie line model. I must have been absent that day when santa was making promises. I've never seen life as anything other than get up, try some stuff, pay attention to what worked and what didn't, try more of the former and less of the latter the next day. And so on.
I don't think they necessarily want access to the line as much as if you're going to have one everyone should be allowed in. I think they would be just as happy there were no line. It's that fairness taste Haidt identified.
But the Trump people don't want no line. His supporters love him because he won't touch entitlement spending. They want their access to the line, they're just mad that others are making the line unsustainable for them. They're the "Get the government out of Medicare" crowd.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3256
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Inequality

Post by Painboy » 01 Aug 2016, 21:58

Mo wrote:
Painboy wrote:
JasonL wrote:I know it to be a real thing in the world, but I don't relate in any way to the life as a goodie line model. I must have been absent that day when santa was making promises. I've never seen life as anything other than get up, try some stuff, pay attention to what worked and what didn't, try more of the former and less of the latter the next day. And so on.
I don't think they necessarily want access to the line as much as if you're going to have one everyone should be allowed in. I think they would be just as happy there were no line. It's that fairness taste Haidt identified.
But the Trump people don't want no line. His supporters love him because he won't touch entitlement spending. They want their access to the line, they're just mad that others are making the line unsustainable for them. They're the "Get the government out of Medicare" crowd.
I'm talking about new programs that minorities primarily benefit from, and a belief that immigrants take more than they give.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11229
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Inequality

Post by Eric the .5b » 01 Aug 2016, 22:02

Mo wrote:
Painboy wrote:
JasonL wrote:I know it to be a real thing in the world, but I don't relate in any way to the life as a goodie line model. I must have been absent that day when santa was making promises. I've never seen life as anything other than get up, try some stuff, pay attention to what worked and what didn't, try more of the former and less of the latter the next day. And so on.
I don't think they necessarily want access to the line as much as if you're going to have one everyone should be allowed in. I think they would be just as happy there were no line. It's that fairness taste Haidt identified.
But the Trump people don't want no line. His supporters love him because he won't touch entitlement spending. They want their access to the line, they're just mad that others are making the line unsustainable for them. They're the "Get the government out of Medicare" crowd.
Just so. They absolutely want goodies, they just want to be told they're great and thus deserve them, rather than it being a "handout" to an inferior.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21675
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Inequality

Post by Mo » 01 Aug 2016, 22:17

Painboy wrote:
Mo wrote:
Painboy wrote:
JasonL wrote:I know it to be a real thing in the world, but I don't relate in any way to the life as a goodie line model. I must have been absent that day when santa was making promises. I've never seen life as anything other than get up, try some stuff, pay attention to what worked and what didn't, try more of the former and less of the latter the next day. And so on.
I don't think they necessarily want access to the line as much as if you're going to have one everyone should be allowed in. I think they would be just as happy there were no line. It's that fairness taste Haidt identified.
But the Trump people don't want no line. His supporters love him because he won't touch entitlement spending. They want their access to the line, they're just mad that others are making the line unsustainable for them. They're the "Get the government out of Medicare" crowd.
I'm talking about new programs that minorities primarily benefit from, and a belief that immigrants take more than they give.
Aside from Obamacare, what program is new?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3256
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Inequality

Post by Painboy » 02 Aug 2016, 00:36

Mo wrote:
Painboy wrote:
Mo wrote:
Painboy wrote:
JasonL wrote:I know it to be a real thing in the world, but I don't relate in any way to the life as a goodie line model. I must have been absent that day when santa was making promises. I've never seen life as anything other than get up, try some stuff, pay attention to what worked and what didn't, try more of the former and less of the latter the next day. And so on.
I don't think they necessarily want access to the line as much as if you're going to have one everyone should be allowed in. I think they would be just as happy there were no line. It's that fairness taste Haidt identified.
But the Trump people don't want no line. His supporters love him because he won't touch entitlement spending. They want their access to the line, they're just mad that others are making the line unsustainable for them. They're the "Get the government out of Medicare" crowd.
I'm talking about new programs that minorities primarily benefit from, and a belief that immigrants take more than they give.
Aside from Obamacare, what program is new?
Ones that are on Hillary's list of things to do when she's elected whatever they may be. You know, all that "PC bullshit" Trump supporters are often going on about.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21326
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 20 Aug 2016, 16:59

This seems pretty reasonable as a way to explain the phenomenon of firm wage selection. Increasingly, people who are high earners work in firms that pay mostly high earners instead of firms containing a mix of high and low earners to the degree they used to: http://niskanencenter.org/blog/why-in-wage-segregation/
When Ezra Klein left the Washington Post to start Vox, for instance, it was directly analogous to someone with a perfect driving record launching their own auto insurance company to avoid the premiums of a high risk pool. It was made possible because online metrics and Klein’s own internal observations helped reveal fellow high-talent outliers. Thus, while Vox may be a smaller company, my guess is per-employee productivity is substantially higher than at the Post.

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9079
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Inequality

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 20 Aug 2016, 17:18

JasonL wrote:This seems pretty reasonable as a way to explain the phenomenon of firm wage selection. Increasingly, people who are high earners work in firms that pay mostly high earners instead of firms containing a mix of high and low earners to the degree they used to: http://niskanencenter.org/blog/why-in-wage-segregation/
When Ezra Klein left the Washington Post to start Vox, for instance, it was directly analogous to someone with a perfect driving record launching their own auto insurance company to avoid the premiums of a high risk pool. It was made possible because online metrics and Klein’s own internal observations helped reveal fellow high-talent outliers. Thus, while Vox may be a smaller company, my guess is per-employee productivity is substantially higher than at the Post.
Sorry, Vox is strong evidence that capitalism is irrevocably broken.
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11229
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Inequality

Post by Eric the .5b » 06 Sep 2016, 13:11

Grist!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... ality.html

It seems to suggest that living in the East or West Coastal States has been really, really bad for the poor.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21326
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 06 Sep 2016, 14:16

Eric the .5b wrote:Grist!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... ality.html

It seems to suggest that living in the East or West Coastal States has been really, really bad for the poor.
Interesting! Always hard to reconcile these stories. I'd like to be able to compare those charts with this:

https://www.aei.org/publication/yes-ame ... me-groups/

"the share of American households earning $100,000 or more per year (in 2014 dollars) increased more than three-fold from 8.1% in 1967 to 24.7% in 2014. If the 8.1% share of households in 1967 earning $100,000 or more hadn’t increased over time to 24.7%, there would only be about 10 million US households today (out of 123.2 million) earning $100,000 or more, instead of the actual number of more than 30 million American households in that high income category."

The suggestion of the latter piece is overall as a nation there is a 2/3 segment of formerly middle class that have substantially improved their position and a 1/3 share of formerly middle class that has gotten worse off. Trying to figure out if that story meshes or conflicts with the regional data.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17551
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Sep 2016, 14:36

JasonL wrote:
Eric the .5b wrote:Grist!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... ality.html

It seems to suggest that living in the East or West Coastal States has been really, really bad for the poor.
Interesting! Always hard to reconcile these stories. I'd like to be able to compare those charts with this:

https://www.aei.org/publication/yes-ame ... me-groups/

"the share of American households earning $100,000 or more per year (in 2014 dollars) increased more than three-fold from 8.1% in 1967 to 24.7% in 2014. If the 8.1% share of households in 1967 earning $100,000 or more hadn’t increased over time to 24.7%, there would only be about 10 million US households today (out of 123.2 million) earning $100,000 or more, instead of the actual number of more than 30 million American households in that high income category."

The suggestion of the latter piece is overall as a nation there is a 2/3 segment of formerly middle class that have substantially improved their position and a 1/3 share of formerly middle class that has gotten worse off. Trying to figure out if that story meshes or conflicts with the regional data.
But don't you see, Jason, that as long as there's even only one middle class household left in America and its income has dropped, evil corporations are to blame?!

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11229
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Inequality

Post by Eric the .5b » 06 Sep 2016, 15:51

A commenter on the Hacker News that linked some other sources, here :

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12436115

Apologies if any came up here, before.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 6714
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Inequality

Post by Shem » 08 Sep 2016, 11:43

JasonL wrote:
Eric the .5b wrote:Grist!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... ality.html

It seems to suggest that living in the East or West Coastal States has been really, really bad for the poor.
Interesting! Always hard to reconcile these stories. I'd like to be able to compare those charts with this:

https://www.aei.org/publication/yes-ame ... me-groups/

"the share of American households earning $100,000 or more per year (in 2014 dollars) increased more than three-fold from 8.1% in 1967 to 24.7% in 2014. If the 8.1% share of households in 1967 earning $100,000 or more hadn’t increased over time to 24.7%, there would only be about 10 million US households today (out of 123.2 million) earning $100,000 or more, instead of the actual number of more than 30 million American households in that high income category."

The suggestion of the latter piece is overall as a nation there is a 2/3 segment of formerly middle class that have substantially improved their position and a 1/3 share of formerly middle class that has gotten worse off. Trying to figure out if that story meshes or conflicts with the regional data.
I wonder what the charts would look like compared to data about the housing crash. My hypothesis, looking at the states that grew versus the ones that took a hit, would be that income gains were swallowed up by guys to housing values, which would explain the u- shape. Poor people can't afford houses, after all, and the rich can weather the hit and even come out better of by buying countercyclically.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17551
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 08 Sep 2016, 11:58

Poor people can't afford houses, but apparently that didn't stop many from getting no-down-payment mortgages. Intuitively, I'd suspect they'd have had to pay a higher monthly mortgage payment than rent for the same housing, but maybe not. Rent has to cover costs plus profits, so who knows? Has anyone done any study on whether, on average, the poor were worse off for having gone through faux-ownership, default and, usually many months later, eviction than if they had just continued to rent somewhere?

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 6714
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Inequality

Post by Shem » 08 Sep 2016, 12:03

I don't think it was genuinely poor people who were getting those mortgages. From what I saw around here, it was mostly lower and middle middle class people getting them, with a healthy number of upper middle class people trying their hand at house-flipping.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21326
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 08 Sep 2016, 12:10

Housing would typically help wealth but not income per se unless you think there are that many people in the landlord business. I may not be reading carefully.

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 6714
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Inequality

Post by Shem » 08 Sep 2016, 12:21

JasonL wrote:Housing would typically help wealth but not income per se unless you think there are that many people in the landlord business. I may not be reading carefully.
I'm thinking specifically of the case of family members, who refinanced at relatively high payment rates to take advantage of equity because the economy (And by extension, their wages) was doing well, but who wound up with high payments and lower wages after the housing market tanked. And, ironically, the better - off actually wound up with lower wages, because the poorer ones had to walk away (and were able to take advantage of lower housing costs) while the better - off ones were able to take advantage of TARP and kept the house, but with higher payments.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21675
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Inequality

Post by Mo » 08 Sep 2016, 12:24

JasonL wrote:Housing would typically help wealth but not income per se unless you think there are that many people in the landlord business. I may not be reading carefully.
Wouldn't low income jobs be tied to housing related things or luxuries where losing a bundle in housing is going to hammer your job (e.g. construction, domestic services, food services, etc.).
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21326
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 08 Sep 2016, 12:25

Oh I read Shem's point incorrectly. Nevermind.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17551
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 08 Sep 2016, 13:20

Shem wrote:I don't think it was genuinely poor people who were getting those mortgages. From what I saw around here, it was mostly lower and middle middle class people getting them, with a healthy number of upper middle class people trying their hand at house-flipping.
Much of the bubble was doubtlessly cause by the latter speculating. But a couple of bankers I've talked to said that before the bubble burst you could probably bring your dog in and get him approved for a shack appraised at $150k. Almost literally, no questions were being asked because the only think that counted was making the mortgage and then selling it before the new homeowner walked through the front door.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21675
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Inequality

Post by Mo » 08 Sep 2016, 14:09

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
Shem wrote:I don't think it was genuinely poor people who were getting those mortgages. From what I saw around here, it was mostly lower and middle middle class people getting them, with a healthy number of upper middle class people trying their hand at house-flipping.
Much of the bubble was doubtlessly cause by the latter speculating. But a couple of bankers I've talked to said that before the bubble burst you could probably bring your dog in and get him approved for a shack appraised at $150k. Almost literally, no questions were being asked because the only think that counted was making the mortgage and then selling it before the new homeowner walked through the front door.
Yeah, look up NINJA loans. Also, right before I left my pre-business school employer*, I got into an argument with my boss about the company's shift in marketing focus from external facing to getting the existing portfolio to refi with increasingly exotic ARMs and the like (primarily to collect the upfront fees, sell the loan (but keep the servicing), wait a couple years for them to refi and repeat the process. The upfront fees dwarfed the money you make from mortgage servicing. The argument was about why we were turning good vanilla sub-primes into risky time bombs. This experience is why I have less than zero sympathy for the banks and find the ideological defenses of them and shifting the blame of their actions to stuff like 70s and 80s legislation as ignorant ideological preening. Those guys knew what they were and mispriced the risk. Pricing the risk is literally (actually literally) their job.

* Also, the members of the "Friends of Angelo" program were worse at paying on time than subprime borrowers
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21326
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 08 Sep 2016, 14:53

Pricing the risk to them is their job. Pricing risk to the next guy down the line or to the system as a whole is way harder. The meat of the issue on the issuer side is why they priced risk to them they way they did and the primary criminal activity would have been misrepresentation of that risk to the next guy down the line so he couldn't price it correctly either. Of course, he was tranching and swapping away his risk so he didn't really care either, and so on.

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 10065
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Inequality

Post by Ellie » 22 Dec 2016, 01:30

This turd plopped onto my FB feed:

Image

I guess maybe it's a concern for single parents with multiple children facing the embarrassments of puberty and deserving a little privacy, but otherwise, why the fuck should I be shocked that a single income can't afford two bedrooms? Why do you need two bedrooms?
I should have listened to Warren. He was right again as usual.

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6377
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Inequality

Post by Jadagul » 22 Dec 2016, 01:36

If these are the same factoids I remember, there were also some other sketchy things about the way they were put together--like, I think they're actually looking at the _median_ two-bedroom apartment.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14795
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Inequality

Post by lunchstealer » 22 Dec 2016, 02:49

Ellie wrote:This turd plopped onto my FB feed:

Image

I guess maybe it's a concern for single parents with multiple children facing the embarrassments of puberty and deserving a little privacy, but otherwise, why the fuck should I be shocked that a single income can't afford two bedrooms? Why do you need two bedrooms?
That statistic is insane. I don't think it's quite as insane as Jadagul's formulation - It's usually based not on median rent but on the ... what's median except for 1/3 instead of 1/2?. I'ma call it 1/3-median.... the 1/3 median rent for a 2-bedroom in the area in question - but that's still pretty sketchy, statistically speaking. To rent at that price, you'd be paying more than 33% of all people with that apartment type. I have trouble believing that a single-earner 2-to-4-person household is going to be in the thirty-third percentile of income.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest