Quote: (01-23-2016 08:41 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2016 08:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Race and culture has nothing to do with anything guys

What does this trollish vid/comment have anything to do with the thread topic? Have you made it your goal in life to derail all threads on the forum?

You pump out half a dozen posts every day, all in the EE forum about race. Isn't it about time you left the house, all this bitter hate can't be good for your outlook on life.

Not sure why you are acting all butthurt and denying basic reality. What effect does Sweden's Muslim underclass have on Sweden's overall development and prosperity metrics? I hope you agree that it brings the country's overall average down. If you refuse to agree with this blatantly obvious fact then nobody should waste any further time discussing this topic with you.

Now that we've established that Sweden's Muslim underclass brings Sweden's overall metrics down, imagine how much lower Sweden's metrics would be if this racial/cultural underclass was not 10% or whatever it currently is, but 40%. What would happen in that case, Vicious? Why, the average would drop even lower, wouldn't it? And it would drop lower completely due to the racial/cultural composition of the Swedish nation, not due to any change in Sweden's economical or societial policies to bring the country closer to the "American" model.

So this is Samseau's point, Vicious. America's racial/cultural underclass is already about 40% of the population. As such, it is completely retarded to look at developmental metrics between Sweden and the USA and pin the difference exclusively, or even mostly, on the two nations' economic and societal models. Because the USA's cultural/racial underclass is a lot bigger than Sweden's, and that's a YUGE confounding factor. Fortunately, Sweden's underclass is growing lightning fast, and we will soon have the opportunity to compare apples to apples, Vicious. And it's going to be a laugher.

Sweden, yes!

This is pretty much it:

Quote: (01-22-2016 10:52 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

The poor are better off in those countries ofcourse, but anyone from lower-middle class and up is better off in the US.

I also lived in both continents. I snipped the rest but this pretty much sums it up.

If you want to be safe in case of unfortunate life events, and willing to settle for an average life, Europe is the place to be.

Although it's not as expensive as you claim, decent gym memberships cost $20-25, and the 8 ounce steak I eat pretty much every day at lunch, with fries and Coke Zero goes for $12, which is OK considering tax is included and there's no service charge or tip added to this price.

Food is subsidized in Germany so I'm guessing the same meal can be had for $7-8 there.

Driving licenses are expensive, I don't know about Germany but mine costed like $600 which is the absolute minimum of what a Swedish driving license costs.
$15 for an eye exam
$20 for the learner's permit
$85 for a mandatory 3-hour lecture on why driving drunk, tired and/or distracted is dangerous (I slept through the entire thing)
$230 for a mandatory winter driving safety course. First there is a 1.5 hour lecture. The course I took was for a class of 25. It was held in both Arabic and Swedish simultaneously, because I was there. (I was the only one in the entire driving school, including the staff, that didn't speak Arabic.) Then you go on a closed course with the instructor, accelerate to 45 mph and apply the brakes, repeat this 4 times, on dry asphalt and on ice, also with and without ABS.
$80 for the written test, $100 for the driving test, $50 to rent the car for the driving test (The car has to have duplicate pedals and extra side/rear view mirrors for the passenger seat so you can't bring your own car) and $30 to print out the license.
Although most people end up failing horribly because the driving tests are extremely strict, so they end up spending $2-3k in private driving lessons and retake fees.

Even though I had been driving since I was 16 when I was about to take the test, I took a 3 hour driving lesson from a friend's wife (who was a licensed driving instructor) and had I not taken the test I wouldn't have passed because she told me everything the examiners look for. (Even though I have a Swedish DL, I'm pretty sure I'd fail if I took it again right now) For example there's a protocol for changing lanes, which goes like "check rearview mirror - check side mirror - check blind spot - put turn signal on - check rear view mirror again - change lane - check rearview mirror - turn off signal" and if you don't do this in this exact order you fail. Basically if you have any prior driving experience and seem confident behind the wheel you can assume you'll fail because the examiners want to see someone who had just learned driving and doesn't take risks, not a veteran driver who's able to read the traffic and act accordingly.

Why I don't like Europe isn't because we're slumming it, which we absolutely are not, it's more of a question of how the government treats you. Just look at the example I gave you about the driving test. The same mentality applies to every single aspect of life. The welfare state basically plans your entire life, you proceed as planned to age 65, if you get sick along the way you're treated for free, if you lose your job along the way you keep getting paid (almost) the same salary by the state until you find a new one, when you have a kid your previous salary is paid by the state until the kid is old enough for daycare, and at the end you retire and you're paid a decent benefit check every month until the day you die in a state hospital.

You got pregnant at age 15, then chose to have the kid and promptly developed a heroin addiction and don't want to work because you feel like you're a unique snowflake that everyone has to put on a pedestal? Still no biggie, here's a free studio apartment for you to live in, here's a monthly benefit so you can support yourself and your baby, and here's a free rehabilitation program that you can take at your own pace. Just tell us when you're ready to join the workforce.

There's no entrepreneurial spirit because there's nothing that rewards excellence, in fact you're expected to be average and never excel at anything. This is heavily reflected in day-to-day living, having a pair of pants altered takes 2 days, the waitress takes your order at a relaxed pace, nobody tries to be better at their job because there's no reason to.

There's also this: http://www.rooshv.com/the-biggest-cockbl...om-denmark

Being better than someone is a huge sin here, you should be average, you should fit in.

This is why I don't like Europe, otherwise it's pretty much the same thing save for a few K in your annual salary.

Quote: (01-23-2016 08:41 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2016 08:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2016 12:51 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

What is the point of having a discussion forum if every thread turns into a race thread?

Race and culture has nothing to do with anything guys

What does this trollish vid/comment have anything to do with the thread topic? Have you made it your goal in life to derail all threads on the forum?

You pump out half a dozen posts every day, all in the EE forum about race. Isn't it about time you left the house, all this bitter hate can't be good for your outlook on life.

Support the pathetic welfare state: Check
Accuse people of racism instead of coming up with valid arguments: Check
Complains about forum members posting too much: Check
Unwarranted superiority complex: Check

Home Country: Sweden

All makes sense now. I KNEW this guy was Scandi just by reading his posts.

Quote: (01-23-2016 12:48 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

Quote: (01-23-2016 08:41 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2016 08:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2016 12:51 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

What is the point of having a discussion forum if every thread turns into a race thread?

Race and culture has nothing to do with anything guys

What does this trollish vid/comment have anything to do with the thread topic? Have you made it your goal in life to derail all threads on the forum?

You pump out half a dozen posts every day, all in the EE forum about race. Isn't it about time you left the house, all this bitter hate can't be good for your outlook on life.

Support the pathetic welfare state: Check
Accuse people of racism instead of coming up with valid arguments: Check
Complains about forum members posting too much: Check
Unwarranted superiority complex: Check

Home Country: Sweden

All makes sense now. I KNEW this guy was Scandi just by reading his posts.

This is such a great observation that you're getting a rep point for this.

Funny story actually;

Buying a syringe needle requires a prescription in Sweden.

One day we were chatting with a couple people at work, then this came up during conversation. I asked the Swedes "Why so?" and they replied "so drug users can't get needles to shoot up".

I asked "Wouldn't it be better to sell syringes over the counter so they don't have to share needles and spread HIV since the cost of treating infections comes out of all our tax money?"

Then the entire room went silent. Not a single person could explain why what I just said wasn't right. (Or cared to explain, dared to explain, or had any explanation at all)

One of them said "it's just that this is the way"

Sums the situation up quite well in my opinion.

Edit: Also if any of you have any explanation as to why selling syringes OTC is a bad idea please derail the fuck out of this thread since to this day I have absolutely no idea as to why.

^ Same retarded rationale for banning guns.

Quote: (01-23-2016 12:37 PM)the Thing Wrote:  

There's no entrepreneurial spirit because there's nothing that rewards excellence, in fact you're expected to be average and never excel at anything. This is heavily reflected in day-to-day living, having a pair of pants altered takes 2 days, the waitress takes your order at a relaxed pace, nobody tries to be better at their job because there's no reason to.

Entrepreneurial spirit in the US mostly manifests in stupid to mediocre dunning-kruger types who don't have what it takes to research the risks of becoming an entrepreneur and failing to strike it big with the first attempt. The few exceptions are rich kids whose parents push them towards entrepreneurship, saying something like "you can have money to start out with but you have to put it towards a venture, you can't just sit back and party using it."

Smart kids who have to earn their own way either identify a cushy, relatively low effort cubicle job or trade job and work towards that, or leave the US.

It's not a good situation. It creates a perverse form of meritocracy where success doesn't go to the competent, but to the gamblers with more balls than brains. When they succeed, they find themselves in a position they're underqualified for, and end up doing a crap job at providing the product or service people rely on them for.

A welfare state is the only way to encourage a smart and ambitious, but poor, young adult to go through the grind of building up a business from nothing. Without the welfare state you'll still have people attempting that grind, they just won't be any good at what they do.

1 in 5 Americans on Food stamps. I wonder what "States" these are!

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/aid-med...id/654041/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ford-food/

Quote: (01-20-2016 06:28 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Fun Fact: The German welfare state (starting with health insurance and accident insurance) was actually begun by a (rather pragmatic) "conservative" in the 19th century: Otto von Bismarck.

Yes, in order to disarm and distract the "masses" from wresting control of Germany from the Prussian Junker aristocracy. It certainly wasn't born out of any love for the German lower classes.

Bismarck knew exactly what he was doing, and he did it very well.

Quote: (10-28-2015 09:09 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Living in England has made me more racist and xenophobic. F*ck muslims, middle easterners, and spaniards. You come to a country you learn its f*cking language or at least make an effort too.

What are my compatriots doing in the United Kingdom? It seems I have quite a few compatriots to reprimand on their return.

Quote: (01-22-2016 10:52 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

The standard of living is definitely not high in the Sweden and Germany.

The poor are better off in those countries ofcourse, but anyone from lower-middle class and up is better off in the US. In Germany, a Doctor lives more or less has the same quality of life as a guy who works at Aldi or Marktkauf.

In the US, fresh Engineering graduates can comfortably land a job that pays 60-80k a year. In Germany, they're lucky to find a job period. If they do they're looking at 30-40k Euros with higher taxes and a higher cost of living.

There are limits to success in Germany and Sweden. Doesn't matter how smart, talented or hard working you are. At some point the government just caps you and says " STOP ... that's enough for you". In America there are no limits.

A gym membership will cost you 100-150 Euros in Germany. In America, most Rec centers charge $25. Planet fitness just $10 a month.

Forget eating out in Europe. I studied in Germany for a little bit over a year and i think i might have eaten out twice. In America, any guy with a non-minimum wage job can go out and eat semi-regularly because service based industries tend to be cheap. 9 dollar Chinese buffets don't exist in Europe.

In Germany, getting a drivers license costs 2500 Euros. Yes two thousand five hundred. In America it costs $25. 1/1000th of the price. Getting a car in America? Easy. $1500 down with an affordable payment plan and you can drive off with a car of your choice. Europe? Better save cold hard cash to buy a gay ass Opel.

Germany and Sweden are great countries for women. They favor security over risk taking and glory. They're both hellholes for men with an iota of intelligence, work ethic and a sense of freedom.

Fuck those cucks.

Edit: There are some advantages like being able to drink in public. Also the fact that if you mess up in life, there is a safety net that will keep you from falling through the cracks. In America, you get 2 DUI's when you're in party mode at 19 and you're fucked for the rest of your life. Get a felony? Bye Bye professional jobs. Europe's justice system is definitely more geared towards rehabilitation than the money grubbing witch-hunt the American justice system has become.

This is absolute nonsense.

@Anabasis to Desta: Some points:

1) Speaking on a friend´s experience, who is a Engineering graduate in Germany, he had not soo much trouble finding job, a good paying job. He got some contacts, but is basic to get contatcs.

2) Again, speaking about Germany, the doctors i saw have a better standard of life than the average blue-collar Joe. They are not super-rich, but have a confortable life.

3) You can not get to eat cheaply in Europe? Barcelona was full of cheap "eat everything you can for 10 euros" chinese restorants. Berlin also have some good cheap places.

The average Joe in Alabama does not live a better life than the average Hans in Germany, that's fairly obvious to anyone who's been to both countries. The top 10% or so of Americans however do live a far better lifestyle than their equivalent in Europe, mostly due to lower taxes and less state regulation on business owners/workers rights for the working class. America is probably the best country in the world to be wealthy in, all things considered (a combination of safety/taxes/public services etc).

The bottom 90% in America though would be far better living in a European social-democratic state due to free university education, free healthcare, legally mandated paternity/maternity/sick leave, minimum weeks of holiday leave, generous unemployment benefit etc. Social mobility is much higher, quality of life is better and the social safety net is a very real thing.

The problem with this is that most Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" (to quote Steinbeck). The majority of Americans think they're upper middle class, or will be, when statistically they both aren't and will never be. Its a country-wide self delusion that shows itself in working class people voting for lower income tax rates (which primarily benefit high earners), being anti-union etc.

The upper class in America have done a wonderful job since the 1960s of demonizing the poor, which deflects attention from themselves. For the average American reading this forum its not minorities on food stamps you should be angry about, its Paris Hilton or Dan Bilzerian paying negligible amounts of income tax.

Quote: (01-25-2016 11:06 AM)zatara Wrote:  

The average Joe in Alabama does not live a better life than the average Hans in Germany, that's fairly obvious to anyone who's been to both countries. The top 10% or so of Americans however do live a far better lifestyle than their equivalent in Europe, mostly due to lower taxes and less state regulation on business owners/workers rights for the working class. America is probably the best country in the world to be wealthy in, all things considered (a combination of safety/taxes/public services etc).

The bottom 90% in America though would be far better living in a European social-democratic state due to free university education, free healthcare, legally mandated paternity/maternity/sick leave, minimum weeks of holiday leave, generous unemployment benefit etc. Social mobility is much higher, quality of life is better and the social safety net is a very real thing.

The problem with this is that most Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" (to quote Steinbeck). The majority of Americans think they're upper middle class, or will be, when statistically they both aren't and will never be. Its a country-wide self delusion that shows itself in working class people voting for lower income tax rates (which primarily benefit high earners), being anti-union etc.

The upper class in America have done a wonderful job since the 1960s of demonizing the poor, which deflects attention from themselves. For the average American reading this forum its not minorities on food stamps you should be angry about, its Paris Hilton or Dan Bilzerian paying negligible amounts of income tax.

It is better to live your life with the strident hope that you will make something of yourself one day than to wallow in complacent, state supported mediocrity like a pathetic turd.

Quote: (01-25-2016 11:13 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

It is better to live your life with the strident hope that you will make something of yourself one day than to wallow in complacent, state supported mediocrity like a pathetic turd.

That's a fairly naive world view. The most intelligent way to live your life is by voting/supporting for policies/politicians that will benefit you currently, not ones that "might" (but statistically, probably won't) benefit you in the distant future on the off chance you become extremely financially successful.

If you DO make it and become a huge success though, you can (and should) at that point alter your voting/support patterns to reflect this and vote/support for politicians/policies that will benefit you.

Basing your life views on "hope" instead of logic is the kind of naive thinking process ghetto people use when they play the lottery every week instead of rationally assessing how to improve their lives.

Quote: (01-25-2016 11:13 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

Quote: (01-25-2016 11:06 AM)zatara Wrote:  

The average Joe in Alabama does not live a better life than the average Hans in Germany, that's fairly obvious to anyone who's been to both countries. The top 10% or so of Americans however do live a far better lifestyle than their equivalent in Europe, mostly due to lower taxes and less state regulation on business owners/workers rights for the working class. America is probably the best country in the world to be wealthy in, all things considered (a combination of safety/taxes/public services etc).

The bottom 90% in America though would be far better living in a European social-democratic state due to free university education, free healthcare, legally mandated paternity/maternity/sick leave, minimum weeks of holiday leave, generous unemployment benefit etc. Social mobility is much higher, quality of life is better and the social safety net is a very real thing.

The problem with this is that most Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" (to quote Steinbeck). The majority of Americans think they're upper middle class, or will be, when statistically they both aren't and will never be. Its a country-wide self delusion that shows itself in working class people voting for lower income tax rates (which primarily benefit high earners), being anti-union etc.

The upper class in America have done a wonderful job since the 1960s of demonizing the poor, which deflects attention from themselves. For the average American reading this forum its not minorities on food stamps you should be angry about, its Paris Hilton or Dan Bilzerian paying negligible amounts of income tax.

It is better to live your life with the strident hope that you will make something of yourself one day than to wallow in complacent, state supported mediocrity like a pathetic turd.

As someone pointed out, Europe is great for women. Lack of competition, lack of having more choices to succeed in life, more security, etc.

It would crush my spirit to live in such a regime. Every day I wake up and know I am getting wealthier. Thanks to the freedoms in the USA, I am able to use leverage and invest in things that would be impossible in Europe. Rather than having most my money stolen by taxes or COL, I keep most of it and turn and invest it in things I WANT. I pay little to nothing for health insurance, because I choose to eat healthy and work out and stretch daily. I have not had to go to a doctor since I was a kid.

The real kick in the nuts for Europe though, is that their socialist system is collapsing. The nice things they have, will soon disappear due to simply costing too much. And then reality will set in.

Quote: (01-25-2016 11:26 AM)zatara Wrote:  

Quote: (01-25-2016 11:13 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

It is better to live your life with the strident hope that you will make something of yourself one day than to wallow in complacent, state supported mediocrity like a pathetic turd.

That's a fairly naive world view. The most intelligent way to live your life is by voting/supporting for policies/politicians that will benefit you currently, not ones that "might" (but statistically, probably won't) benefit you in the distant future on the off chance you become extremely financially successful.

If you DO make it and become a huge success though, you can (and should) at that point alter your voting/support patterns to reflect this and vote/support for politicians/policies that will benefit you.

Basing your life views on "hope" instead of logic is the kind of naive thinking process ghetto people use when they play the lottery every week instead of rationally assessing how to improve their lives.

It's not a naive worldview, and your lottery analogy fails utterly. Why do you get out of bed each day or do more than the minimum amount of effort at school or at work? What kind of "ghetto mentality" are you following when you believe that being smarter, harder working, and opportunistic than the average fat fuck is going to give you an edge over said fat fuck?

In order to think that a socialist shithole is the best system for yourself, you first have to accept that you are a failure who will never amount to anything and are thus going to benefit by living as a leech in a stagnant dystopian society where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is the rule of the day. If you support socialism today, you accept that success is not going to be an option for you in the future since socialism actively prevents success and in fact makes it a losing strategy.

It's better to go through life believing you'll make it big one day than to go through life as a loser who accepts that he's a loser and knows he always will be a loser till the day he dies. I stand by my analysis

Quote: (01-25-2016 07:04 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

This is absolute nonsense.

I'll explain.

My uncle studied in Germany in the 80's and is a heart surgeon now with over 20 years of experience. Of course he lives a better life than your average Turkish guy stocking shelves at Lidl. But the difference is just not that palpable. He's got a small house. 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms with a tiny garden. He drives a 2006 Audi A4. He's got two kids and honestly told me he could not afford any more.

In America, my friends from college who graduated just 3 years ago and work normal entry level jobs have bigger houses, newer/better cars, take more frequent vacations and have more disposable income than he does.

Quote:Quote:

The average Joe in Alabama does not live a better life than the average Hans in Germany, that's fairly obvious to anyone who's been to both countries.

I've lived in both countries and disagree. The German system sucks the humanity out of you. By the time they are 16 years old, the average German has given up on life. No fire, no drive, no ambition, no big plans for their life. Just sort of taking each day as it comes.They know they're never going to starve. They also know they will never become anything special.

Quote:Quote:

Social mobility is much higher, quality of life is better and the social safety net is a very real thing.

I was taking you seriously until that statement. America has by far the highest social mobility in the world. If you work hard and obey the law, a middle class lifestyle is almost guaranteed.

So many cases of immigrants moving to the US with no money and barely able to speak the English who in 6-10 years own several businesses, a house, several cars and set their children up for a better future. If those same immigrants moved to Germany, you guys would break their spirit by placing them in shady government housing, giving them a monthly allowance and free everything for their children. No opportunity to develop that human potential that's inside every man. Just the opportunity to wallow in your own excrement of mediocrity like a pig. No thanks.


I knew a bunch of Euros would circle back to this thread to claim how superior they are.

Quote: (01-25-2016 11:48 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

It's not a naive worldview, and your lottery analogy fails utterly. Why do you get out of bed each day or do more than the minimum amount of effort at school or at work? What kind of "ghetto mentality" are you following when you believe that being smarter, harder working, and opportunistic than the average fat fuck is going to give you an edge over said fat fuck?

I don't think you quite understand the concept of rational voting behaviour. Voting for policies that improve your current life does not preclude one from working harder, smarter etc etc. You continue to do all this, and your voting behaviour evolves as your financial situation changes. If you actually ARE smarter, harder working etc then your life situation will surely change - and you can then vote reflecting this. Instead of simply believing yourself to be so with no empirical evidence of this and voting based on hope.

Quote:Quote:

In order to think that a socialist shithole is the best system for yourself, you first have to accept that you are a failure who will never amount to anything and are thus going to benefit by living as a leech in a stagnant dystopian society where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is the rule of the day. If you support socialism today, you accept that success is not going to be an option for you in the future since socialism actively prevents success and in fact makes it a losing strategy.

It's better to go through life believing you'll make it big one day than to go through life as a loser who accepts that he's a loser and knows he always will be a loser till the day he dies. I stand by my analysis

You're injecting irrational emotion into the political thought process. Its not about being in favour of one political value-system or another, or "accepting you're a loser" or similar hyperbole. What you need to do is sit down and work out which political policy is of the most benefit to you now and/or in the next election cycle (2/4/6 years - whatever it is in your constituency). You then vote for it.

At the next election, you repeat the process and adjust your voting habits accordingly, depending on how your living situation changes in the intervening time period. Anyone who pigeon-holes themselves as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, conservative or anything else inflexible is not behaving intelligently. When someone is poor, they should vote for economically left-wing parties. When they're wealthy, they should vote for economically right-wing parties.

Short of economically hard left actual communists or economically hard right neo-liberals becoming the dominant majority in government any changes to society are largely incremental and will not have a hugely detrimental influence on your chance of being a success. In either a right of center society (the US currently) or left of center (most of Europe) success is still both achievable and reliant on hard work, intelligence etc. The degree of financial success that results from these is the variable.

Quote: (01-25-2016 12:10 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

I was taking you seriously until that statement. America has by far the highest social mobility in the world. If you work hard and obey the law, a middle class lifestyle is almost guaranteed.

So many cases of immigrants moving to the US with no money and barely able to speak the English who in 6-10 years own several businesses, a house, several cars and set their children up for a better future. If those same immigrants moved to Germany, you guys would break their spirit by placing them in shady government housing, giving them a monthly allowance and free everything for their children. No opportunity to develop that human potential that's inside every man. Just the opportunity to wallow in your own excrement of mediocrity like a pig. No thanks.

Anecdotal evidence based on the "American dream" fantasy. Statistics do not bear this out. To quote from earlier in the thread:



Or elsewhere:

Quote:Quote:

I knew a bunch of Euros would circle back to this thread to claim how superior they are. All i gotta say is ...

You clearly didn't read my first post. I don't believe either the European or American system is superior, generally speaking. The American system is by far superior for the top 10% of earners. The European system is by far superior for the bottom 90% of earners. They're different systems that benefit different segments of the population.

My point is that a large amount of Americans seem to have a problem recognising that statistically they're in the bottom 90% of income and are likely to remain so. If they could put aside dogmatic ideology and vote logically they could drastically improve their lives.

The top 10% should absolutely be voting in favour of the current American system.

^ How are they measuring social mobility in that graph you posted though? I'll tell you how. Quote from the same study you posted.

Quote:Quote:

In this chapter, inter-generational social mobility is measured in alternative ways (e.g. secondary and post-secondary education mobility), given that no single indicator can provide a comprehensive picture.......

In the United Kingdom, for instance, wage andearnings mobility are found to be low in international comparison compared to mobility in tertiary education.

Full study. http://www.oecd.org/tax/public-finance/c...202010.pdf

They're using secondary and post-secondary education mobility as a metric. Which obviously works in favor of European countries because anyone can go to college for free.

I want to see a study that focuses on wage and income as the only metric of social mobility.

Quote: (01-25-2016 12:21 PM)zatara Wrote:  

Quote: (01-25-2016 11:48 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

It's not a naive worldview, and your lottery analogy fails utterly. Why do you get out of bed each day or do more than the minimum amount of effort at school or at work? What kind of "ghetto mentality" are you following when you believe that being smarter, harder working, and opportunistic than the average fat fuck is going to give you an edge over said fat fuck?

I don't think you quite understand the concept of rational voting behaviour. Voting for policies that improve your current life does not preclude one from working harder, smarter etc etc. You continue to do all this, and your voting behaviour evolves as your financial situation changes. If you actually ARE smarter, harder working etc then your life situation will surely change - and you can then vote reflecting this. Instead of simply believing yourself to be so with no empirical evidence of this and voting based on hope.

Quote:Quote:

In order to think that a socialist shithole is the best system for yourself, you first have to accept that you are a failure who will never amount to anything and are thus going to benefit by living as a leech in a stagnant dystopian society where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is the rule of the day. If you support socialism today, you accept that success is not going to be an option for you in the future since socialism actively prevents success and in fact makes it a losing strategy.

It's better to go through life believing you'll make it big one day than to go through life as a loser who accepts that he's a loser and knows he always will be a loser till the day he dies. I stand by my analysis

You're injecting irrational emotion into the political thought process. Its not about being in favour of one political value-system or another, or "accepting you're a loser" or similar hyperbole. What you need to do is sit down and work out which political policy is of the most benefit to you now and/or in the next election cycle (2/4/6 years - whatever it is in your constituency). You then vote for it.

At the next election, you repeat the process and adjust your voting habits accordingly, depending on how your living situation changes in the intervening time period. Anyone who pigeon-holes themselves as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, conservative or anything else inflexible is not behaving intelligently. When someone is poor, they should vote for economically left-wing parties. When they're wealthy, they should vote for economically right-wing parties.

Short of economically hard left actual communists or economically hard right neo-liberals becoming the dominant majority in government any changes to society are largely incremental and will not have a hugely detrimental influence on your chance of being a success. In either a right of center society (the US currently) or left of center (most of Europe) success is still both achievable and reliant on hard work, intelligence etc. The degree of financial success that results from these is the variable.

You're still not making any sense. You are either voting for symbolically redistributionist policies that will make hardly any difference to your life while you're poor, or for significantly redistributionist policies that will make it easier when you're poor but also much harder to get rich. The math has to add up.

Quote: (01-25-2016 12:21 PM)zatara Wrote:  

When someone is poor, they should vote for economically left-wing parties. When they're wealthy, they should vote for economically right-wing parties.

You do know how a democracy works, right?
So the number of poor and wealthy people is always in equilibrium, always hovering around 50:50?
Of course not. One of those groups has a majority.
Always. Naturally.
And once you manage to convince them that this is inherently wrong, there's a logical outcome.
You, and all other smart, hard working, successful, honest people won't like that. Promise.

Quote: (01-25-2016 12:33 PM)zatara Wrote:  

My point is that a large amount of Americans seem to have a problem recognising that statistically they're in the bottom 90% of income and are likely to remain so. If they could put aside dogmatic ideology and vote logically they could drastically improve their lives.

The top 10% should absolutely be voting in favour of the current American system.

What happens when the lower 90% of the income bracket refuse, as you suggest, to think further than the next day, and vote strictly for what's good for them, redistributing wealth? Strictly rational?
Then the top 10% can vote for whatever they want, it doesn't matter anymore.
And, in this case, what incentive would outstanding individuals have to contribute outstanding feats to society, if moving up the income latter just means that inevitably the majority of the less outstanding individuals will take their rewards from them to redistribute it amongst themselves?
Why would anybody do more than the absolutely necessary minimum then?
And what would that mean for a society?

This is real life, with real human beings acting according to their nature.
Keep that in mind.

Voting for strict self interest is why democracy fails with women and why it won't take hold outside hightly developed populations with high IQs.

Civilization in itself means voluntarily accepting that I must put some bonds on my freedom in order to live by a code and ideal that lifts itself above petty squabble and self interest.

Women have zero understanding of this civilization mindset, most men are able to understand it. They're able to understand that even in defeat it is important to keep you selfrespect and not become a beggar and rascal. You can call it the chivalrous code but it is much, much older, it is the very basis of European aristhocracy.

This kind of civilizationary mindset is also fully absent in many parts of the world, see South America, Middle East and Africa, where everyone is out strictly for oneself and one's family. There is no such thing as personal morality, only what you can convince others off externally. This is a main reason for why those countries suck economically.

Quote: (01-25-2016 12:43 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

I want to see a study that focuses on wage and income as the only metric of social mobility.

If you dislike the results of those peer reviewed studies feel free to find your own that offer alternative results. Stating you don't like the results with no empirical evidence that refutes them isn't really a counterargument.

Quote: (01-25-2016 12:43 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

You're still not making any sense. You are either voting for symbolically redistributionist policies that will make hardly any difference to your life while you're poor, or for significantly redistributionist policies that will make it easier when you're poor but also much harder to get rich. The math has to add up.

You're not quite grasping how voting patterns work in most other western democracies. To create an example: If someone is a low earner, they'll likely vote for a party that will raise taxes on those who earn $100k+ by 5% in order to reduce taxes on those earning under $100k by 3%. This will immediately benefit their finances if they're earning under $100k. It will not however prevent them from striving to earn $100k in the long term - as even with the raised taxes on the higher income their living standard would still benefit from increased income. Once they reach $100k in earnings they'll start voting for parties that pledge to reduce taxes on those earning over $100k, as this will now benefit them.

This is generally how economic voting patterns work in most mature western democracies. Socialist parties draw their support from the working class, conservatives from the higher earners. But most voters tend not to be "hardcast" - their voting habits vacillate according to their financial situation.

The US is a bit of an anomaly in this respect, with lower earners voting for parties that do not reflect their best interests because they ideologically define themselves as simplistically "conservative" or "liberal". This is what's unfortunate, intellectually. For what it's worth, I'd apply the same logic to any top 10% earners who vote for left-wing economic parties - they're also making an economic mistake. These people tend to be much rarer, however.

Quote: (01-25-2016 01:33 PM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  

What happens when the lower 90% of the income bracket refuse, as you suggest, to think further than the next day, and vote strictly for what's good for them, redistributing wealth? Strictly rational?
Then the top 10% can vote for whatever they want, it doesn't matter anymore.
And, in this case, what incentive would outstanding individuals have to contribute outstanding feats to society, if moving up the income latter just means that inevitably the majority of the less outstanding individuals will take their rewards from them to redistribute it amongst themselves?
Why would anybody do more than the absolutely necessary minimum then?
And what would that mean for a society?

This is real life, with real human beings acting according to their nature.
Keep that in mind.

The idea that the upper classes won't work if tax rates rise is a fallacy in "real life", though. The upper marginal tax rate for income in the United States under President Eisenhower's administration was 91% in the 1950s (the effective tax rate hovered around 70% - slightly lower, but still significantly higher than in most countries these days). Yet the U.S. in the 1950s was the world leader in business development, scientific innovation etc. Higher upper marginal tax rates do not equal a stagnant society.

For the record, I'm not in favour of a high tax centre-left state for any ideological reasons. I used to vote in favour of such policies in my country when when my taxed income was not in the top 10%, as it benefited me economically to do so. I no longer do so, because voting for the lower-tax centre-right parties now has more financial benefit for me as my income has risen as I've aged. Voting for the centre-left parties in my leaner years to increase my then standard of living did not prevent me working hard to improve my overall income.

If more Americans voted along similar lines it would likely be a much better country for people under 30, who I believe are the majority demographic of this forum. Which is why I think it would be positive.

Quote:Quote:

The idea that the upper classes won't work if tax rates rise is a fallacy in "real life", though. The upper marginal tax rate for income in the United States under President Eisenhower's administration was 91% in the 1950s

This is a fallacy you can find debunked in many places, so much so the Democrats quit using it. The base tax rate was 91%, but the marginal tax rate (what is actually paid) is lower that today due to the loop holes that existed back then.

Taking money away from hard working and efficient companies and giving it to inefficient bureaucrat is a sure path to failure.