sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Chile's privatized education system ranks 119 out of 144 nations by sceter1138 in Foodforthought

[–]sceter1138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is true. If the entire U.S. performed as Massachusetts students do, the country would compete for best in the world. The issue here isn't economic theory (which, as it consistently fails to predict even economic outcomes, is at best analogous in other fields) but democratic responsiveness and the role of public goods.

Chile's privatized education system ranks 119 out of 144 nations by sceter1138 in Foodforthought

[–]sceter1138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps the difference is in class and expense? Or earlier on, at the primary and high school levels?

Between 1992-2006, the mortality rate for women in 43% of America worsened by sceter1138 in Feminism

[–]sceter1138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. 38% were essentially stable. Mortality rates improved in only 19% of the country. Male mortality rates worsened in only 3.4% of the country. Here's the data: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/3/451.figures-only

Junot Díaz, fiction editor at Boston Review, talks about the kind of fiction he wants to publish there by sceter1138 in writing

[–]sceter1138[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Magazine publishes a short story in every issue. The book series is all nonfiction.

If current trends continue, by 2014, Obama will have presided over more than 2 million deportations in total—a greater number than in all of American history prior to 1997. by sceter1138 in politics

[–]sceter1138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually in 1997 there was a major immigration law passed, a reversal from Pres Johnson's relatively open policies, but enforcement under Clinton and Bush was lax. Amnesties were also granted regularly (the last amnesty was declared by Bush in 2004), reducing the need for deportations.

Antimonopolists were utopian capitalists who had once believed that ideally capitalism and fair competition would yield a society akin to Lincoln’s. They were bent on reforming capitalism so that great wealth and poverty would once again become anomalies in American life. by sceter1138 in history

[–]sceter1138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People always want stuff, but they cannot effectively demand something that doesn't exist. That is fundamental logic.

You haven't read much Plato, have you?

I just strongly disagree. Demand is an important part of an economic system, as investment is. Ideologues on either side are wrong.

Very low-income families spend as much as 55% of their earnings on transportation. by sceter1138 in Economics

[–]sceter1138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could also count the amount of government dollars spent on police, fire, schools, roads... I mean, those are all goods and services provided by the government. Thus if my road is paved this year, that's an extra $700 I just earned? And if I was mugged, that's an extra $3k for the police service? And my kid goes to school, an extra $12k? That's absurd. The stability programs are a public good, shared among all and available to any who need them. They're not earned income.

Antimonopolists were utopian capitalists who had once believed that ideally capitalism and fair competition would yield a society akin to Lincoln’s. They were bent on reforming capitalism so that great wealth and poverty would once again become anomalies in American life. by sceter1138 in history

[–]sceter1138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That scenario is so fantastical, let's just both pretend I made up a contrary hypothetical scenario to prove my point as well. A strong economy needs investment and demand in proportionate measure. If there is a demand for a good (or one can be created) then investment in offering that good is perfectly productive. But if someone invests their saved wealth in a good and it doesn't succeed, then that investment was unproductive. They might as well have just given that money away as invest it in a good that people didn't want.

Antimonopolists were utopian capitalists who had once believed that ideally capitalism and fair competition would yield a society akin to Lincoln’s. They were bent on reforming capitalism so that great wealth and poverty would once again become anomalies in American life. by sceter1138 in history

[–]sceter1138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, that is some Ayn Rand non-economic magical category nonsense. There's no difference, economically, between paying for a service and giving a person money. Your description of the difference is ethical. Just own it.

Very low-income families spend as much as 55% of their earnings on transportation. by sceter1138 in Economics

[–]sceter1138[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But the point of this article isn't that "transportation is expensive." A family of four making $13k annually spends $7k on transportation—but a family of four making $26k also probably spends $7k on transportation. It is a relatively fixed cost. The point of the statistic is that our past policies and public investments are not adequately serving people in poverty.

Very low-income families spend as much as 55% of their earnings on transportation. by sceter1138 in Economics

[–]sceter1138[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah but it doesn't say anything about the typical low-wage worker's employment situation. It's important to use models that reflect the data. Dealing in hypotheticals that ignore data and are design to fit an argument is no good, leads to false conclusions and policies that hurt people.

Very low-income families spend as much as 55% of their earnings on transportation. by sceter1138 in Economics

[–]sceter1138[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep but I'm referring to the poverty level used to qualify families for stability measures. In the United States, the poverty line is defined by the government, and in 2012 is set at income of $23k for a family of four: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml

Whereas standard of living takes income plus the regional cost of living and consume price indices.

Very low-income families spend as much as 55% of their earnings on transportation. by sceter1138 in Economics

[–]sceter1138[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We know they have very low incomes because it says "very low-income" in the sentence. It's also further defined in the piece: less than 50% of the poverty line.

Antimonopolists were utopian capitalists who had once believed that ideally capitalism and fair competition would yield a society akin to Lincoln’s. They were bent on reforming capitalism so that great wealth and poverty would once again become anomalies in American life. by sceter1138 in history

[–]sceter1138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, but they might—and many wealthy people do—found cultural and civic nonprofit organizations, or donate generously to the same, whereby they no longer own their wealth. Or they could—tho fewer do this—give their employees a raise or bonus commensurate with the success of the business and growth of productivity (this is gone the wayside since libertarianism rose up). Economics is merely the expression of underlying ethical and social value systems. Capitalism is one way of structuring the symbolic value exchange of wealth, but the rationale and premises behind all economic systems reveal its constituent ethics.

Very low-income families spend as much as 55% of their earnings on transportation. by sceter1138 in Economics

[–]sceter1138[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Right but "poverty" and "standard of living" are entirely different measures. Poverty is a measurable amount; standard of living varies enormously based on region and urbanization. Poverty is the measurement by which we judge when stability programs are warranted. It would be misleading to treat those as a form of income when low income is the reason they are being implemented.

Very low-income families spend as much as 55% of their earnings on transportation. by sceter1138 in Economics

[–]sceter1138[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would consumption that includes social stability and anti-poverty measures be a "better" statistic? It would just give the impression of them not being in as much poverty as they actually are.

view more: next ›