America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,011 comments
  • 1,485,631 views
TexRex
You obviously use space lasers.
Click to expand...

Looks like a job for the United States Space Force

le1VV3j.png
 


Oh, just normal things.

Darla Starch
Looks like a job for the United States Space Force

le1VV3j.png
Click to expand...
It may not actually be up to Space Force.

The conspiracy holds that the Rothschilds are responsible for this technology, and that purportedly makes sense because someone on the board of an energy company also has direct dealings with the Rothschilds' business interests. Seems pretty airtight.

The Biden administration may have to contract it out.
 
TexRex


Oh, just normal things.


It may not actually be up to Space Force.

The conspiracy holds that the Rothschilds are responsible for this technology, and that purportedly makes sense because someone on the board of an energy company also has direct dealings with the Rothschilds' business interests. Seems pretty airtight.

The Biden administration may have to contract it out.
Click to expand...

Once again, I cannot use the space lasers because someone locked me out after forgetting the password.
 
Borrowed this quote from a thread which is currently a train wreck.

Scaff
The truth is that (with very few exceptions) if you are born rich you will remain rich in the US, and if you are born poor you will stay poor (and likely be poorer than your parents).
Click to expand...

70% of families lose their wealth by the 2nd generation, 90% lose it by the 3rd.

I think your phrasing for "born rich" is probably meant as shorthand for being born to wealthy parents, or having parents who become wealthy (even after your birth). I don't think you literally meant "born rich" which would require some sort of trust fund in your name, under your control, set up prior to your birth. That's hard to do without a social security number and birth certificate (not impossible, but not easy). A lot of wealthy people are actually wildly interested in controlling their wealth even after they pass it on. Many times inheritance is passed on late in life, perhaps as the "child" enters retirement, when their parents die. But if wealth is passed on earlier, it often comes with elaborate strings attached, in trust funds that can't be accessed until certain ages are reached, or under certain conditions. The strings attached is a way for parents to control their adult children, even from beyond the grave. So I don't know that the phrase "born rich" really applies literally.

Parents often naturally want to help their children, or ensure their children's safety and security. So it does make sense that ultra wealthy individuals ensure that their children remain wealthy, almost regardless of their actions. But the picture is often (based on the statistics) a downward slide through generations. Not just due to taxes, but due to a lack of the same mind, shaped by the same circumstances, that created the wealth in the first place. A child of a wealthy person simply doesn't, and practically can't, have the same outlook.

I suppose I'm a counterexample for your "if you're born poor" (which I'll assume means you're born to poor parents) "you will stay poor". So I'll try to remove myself from that statement.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...pecially-if-they-grew-up-in-the-middle-class/

While absolute mobility declined across the income distribution, those born into the very bottom of the distribution are still highly likely to out-earn their parents. This is virtually a mechanical result: we would expect such a trend given the low point from which they started.
Click to expand...

brookings.png


It's actually the wealthier your parents were the less likely you are to out earn them. For parents who were poor, the vast majority of their children out-earn them, even for kids born in 1980. Notably, that number seems to be going down, but there are a lot of ways to interpret that result.


*I put this discussion in the America thread since it seemed to be centered around American statistics and around a very America-centric topic. @Scaff if you think it belongs elsewhere we can move it.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Borrowed this quote from a thread which is currently a train wreck.



70% of families lose their wealth by the 2nd generation, 90% lose it by the 3rd.

I think your phrasing for "born rich" is probably meant as shorthand for being born to wealthy parents, or having parents who become wealthy (even after your birth). I don't think you literally meant "born rich" which would require some sort of trust fund in your name, under your control, set up prior to your birth. That's hard to do without a social security number and birth certificate (not impossible, but not easy). A lot of wealthy people are actually wildly interested in controlling their wealth even after they pass it on. Many times inheritance is passed on late in life, perhaps as the "child" enters retirement, when their parents die. But if wealth is passed on earlier, it often comes with elaborate strings attached, in trust funds that can't be accessed until certain ages are reached, or under certain conditions. The strings attached is a way for parents to control their adult children, even from beyond the grave. So I don't know that the phrase "born rich" really applies literally.

Parents often naturally want to help their children, or ensure their children's safety and security. So it does make sense that ultra wealthy individuals ensure that their children remain wealthy, almost regardless of their actions. But the picture is often (based on the statistics) a downward slide through generations. Not just due to taxes, but due to a lack of the same mind, shaped by the same circumstances, that created the wealth in the first place. A child of a wealthy person simply doesn't, and practically can't, have the same outlook.

I suppose I'm a counterexample for your "if you're born poor" (which I'll assume means you're born to poor parents) "you will stay poor". So I'll try to remove myself from that statement.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...pecially-if-they-grew-up-in-the-middle-class/



View attachment 1016610

It's actually the wealthier your parents were the less likely you are to out earn them. For parents who were poor, the vast majority of their children out-earn them, even for kids born in 1980. Notably, that number seems to be going down, but there are a lot of ways to interpret that result.


*I put this discussion in the America thread since it seemed to be centered around American statistics and around a very America-centric topic. @Scaff if you think it belongs elsewhere we can move it.
Click to expand...
My phrasing was referring (not clearly, but that wasn't required in the original thread) to the very wealthiest.

For everyone else it's been, based on the data I cited, a pattern over recent years of decreasing earning and in particular disposable income, across all groups (apart from again the very wealthiest).
 
Scaff
My phrasing was referring (not clearly, but that wasn't required in the original thread) to the very wealthiest.

For everyone else it's been, based on the data I cited, a pattern over recent years of decreasing earning and in particular disposable income, across all groups (apart from again the very wealthiest).
Click to expand...

The decrease in disposable income (I'm substituting earnings here) is most pronounced in children of high earners (the opposite of what you just said), and reverses as parental earnings go down until you get to the point where it is highly likely that you will out-earn your parents (again the opposite of what you just said).

I think what you were getting at is some kind of median income level being less likely to out earn median income parents according to birth year, but it's not the same thing and if you look it applies nearly uniformly regardless of the earning potential of parents.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
70% of families lose their wealth by the 2nd generation, 90% lose it by the 3rd.
Click to expand...
Well obviously they lose it because it trickles down to the little guy, right? They surely aren't investing it into future projects, otherwise it would grow. They must be wasting it on rich-people things that do nothing to advance society. Just as new wealth can be created, existing wealth can be lost. That's different than simply transferring from one place to another. So those statistics seem to suggest that wealthy people, especially those born into wealth, are by far the most wasteful people in society and actively engage in the destruction of wealth rather than its creation or spread. They're not simply helping lift less fortunate people or helping to provide opportunity, they're actively working against that cause by destroying wealth that could be invested into society.

Related to another thread, an example might be how desalinization plants and nuclear power plants are too expensive for California to implement, meanwhile thousands of extremely wealthy people compete to see who can build the largest house in the water-scarce and fire-prone hills. It's not that there isn't enough wealth to improve society, it's that the people who hold that wealth don't care about improving anything and would rather throw it away than use it to improve the future.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
The decrease in disposable income (I'm substituting earnings here) is most pronounced in children of high earners (the opposite of what you just said), and reverses as parental earnings go down until you get to the point where it is highly likely that you will out-earn your parents (again the opposite of what you just said).

I think what you were getting at is some kind of median income level being less likely to out earn median income parents according to birth year, but it's not the same thing and if you look it applies nearly uniformly regardless of the earning potential of parents.
Click to expand...
The research I was citing looked at absolute mobility (at the age of 30) and found the following:

"We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size."

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/abs_mobility_summary.pdf

The full paper can be found here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22910/w22910.pdf

Out of interest what source is the NASDAQ article referencing?
 
Last edited:
Keef
Well obviously they lose it because it trickles down to the little guy, right? They surely aren't investing it into future projects, otherwise it would grow. They must be wasting it on rich-people things that do nothing to advance society. Just as new wealth can be created, existing wealth can be lost. That's different than simply transferring from one place to another. So those statistics seem to suggest that wealthy people, especially those born into wealth, are by far the most wasteful people in society and actively engage in the destruction of wealth rather than its creation or spread. They're not simply helping lift less fortunate people or helping to provide opportunity, they're actively working against that cause by destroying wealth that could be invested into society.
Click to expand...

There's a lot to unpack in that rant, but I think one of the easiest things to pick at is the phrase "destruction of wealth". "Spending" is not the same thing as "destruction". Destruction of wealth is certainly possible, there's absolutely no question about that, but someone's net worth declines that's not necessarily a destruction of wealth. It can be philanthropy or spending.

As generations grow, the wealth of the original wealthy individual is less concentrated. Even if generations do not grow, wealthy people often put lots of strings on their wealth, preferring to create charitable foundations, or invest in other pursuits rather than solely for their children's lifestyle. If you're a billionaire, what do you do with your other $990M when your kids have $10M set aside to make sure they're comfortable?

If you're reasonably assured that you're financially secure for life, you're more free to pursue other ventures - things that aren't necessarily economically productive but are rewarding in other ways, like philanthropy. Sure, I'd be willing to bet that plenty of "rich kids" have bought ferraris or dumped champagne in the ocean, but looking at it statistically, you're talking about someone who was one within the very top percentile of the creation of wealth among the species. Their kids are just incredibly unlikely to do that. That being said, they might easily create more wealth than someone else, and be less "wasteful" by your definition, even without achieving or surpassing the wealth creation of their parents.

Scaff
The research I was citing looked at absolute mobility (at the age of 30) and found the following:

"We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size."

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/abs_mobility_summary.pdf
Click to expand...

I think that's all visible in the chart I posted.
 
Last edited:
TB
"We don't anticipate that" is a very polite way of saying "that's 🤬 impossible, you 🤬 🤬."
Click to expand...
This is why I may have trouble once I finally get into a real professional work setting. I am not good at sugarcoating things or using "professional" language. If something is stupid, I say it's stupid. If somebody does something really dumb, the only way to make sure it never happens again is to make sure they know it was really dumb. Kids are one thing, they don't know any better, but I have very little tolerance for dumb adults.
 


continued

Click to expand...

To help drive home the assertion that Republicans are unable to defend the substance of the legislation, when asked during hearings prior to the walkout what fraud the bill was designed to stop, its lead sponsor and real-life homunculus Briscoe Cain (R-128)'s response--"Okay, yeah...well, you know, we've got...w-we're trying to maybe stop the...w-were called ballot harvesting?" (sic)--didn't exactly inspire confidence. Then there's the not insubstantial matter of Republicans responding to high-profile corporate criticism and concern--legitimate criticism and concern--with queerly despotic threats of State action.
 
TexRex



To help drive home the assertion that Republicans are unable to defend the substance of the legislation, when asked during hearings prior to the walkout what fraud the bill was designed to stop, its lead sponsor and real-life homunculus Briscoe Cain (R-128)'s response--"Okay, yeah...well, you know, we've got...w-we're trying to maybe stop the...w-were called ballot harvesting?" (sic)--didn't exactly inspire confidence. Then there's the not insubstantial matter of Republicans responding to high-profile corporate criticism and concern--legitimate criticism and concern--with queerly despotic threats of State action.
Click to expand...

But backing down from being assholes is not part of the Republican platform so what truly caused this change of heart? Am I to believe that Republicans actually broke down and read the bill? That some of the meeker finally stood up to speak truth? That they finally realized, "wow, we suck", and decided to do something about it? What's the real reason that they started scrapping parts of the bill?
 
Keef
This is why I may have trouble once I finally get into a real professional work setting. I am not good at sugarcoating things or using "professional" language. If something is stupid, I say it's stupid. If somebody does something really dumb, the only way to make sure it never happens again is to make sure they know it was really dumb. Kids are one thing, they don't know any better, but I have very little tolerance for dumb adults.
Click to expand...
So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt.
 
I'm not sure anything will ever get better in terms of gun violence here. Only worse, I think, which is scary, compared to how bad it is now. One - "muh second amendment", Two - hunting and gun culture, Three - individualism, Four - mental issues still not being taken seriously, and plenty more other factors.
 
MaxAttack
Who gives a toss?

When the milk for my cereal has gone off, I don't go asking if the milk is 1% or full fat.
Click to expand...
In the case of the Downtown Austin shooting, there's still one perpetrator at large with one in custody. That's how early it is.

So you have to find the milk first, and then it may actually be the yogurt...I guess. Hard to make that analogy work. The point is that some steps have been skipped over.
 
TexRex
As misguided as I think that law is, it's not likely to be relevant to this incident.
Click to expand...
It's not, but I've seen people argue for it that it means more people can carry guns now and that will deter a criminal.

Would rather have 3 people who went through the process to carry potentially stop a criminal than 10 monkeys who bought a gun but have no training.
 

Latest Posts

Back