An interesting thesis on inequality....the yard sale model.

[GB-man]

Idk about you guys but I played their game and absolutely smoked the rich man lol

[cartesian Product]

Originally Posted by OverGeared

Unfortunately we get the illusion of equality of opportunity, not the reality.

It's trendy, but mostly an excuse.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by 330ci

Pareto made similar observations about wealth distribution in the 1890s.

< big snip to save space >

The sad reality is most people would be lucky to be at $0 though, most people seem to be negative money these days.

I applaud your post... even had a lil tear in my eyes at the end (seriously).

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

It's trendy, but mostly an excuse.

We pretty obviously don’t have equality of opportunity. I’ve known untalented drug addicts with criminal records whose parents bought their way into careers in high finance, medicine and family businesses.

The better question (I think) is why so many people can’t hold down a job (any job), training or education (anything that leads to a job works), attempt to follow the law and rules, and even attempt to save some money. They’ll probably never achieve the same results as the kids born on 3rd base — like the kids at Dalton, Collegiate, Riverdale, St. Paul’s, Lawrenceville, etc. — because we don’t actually have equality of opportunity, but they’re capable of doing something, and it’d be nice if more people tried to do something. Seems like a ton of people in NYC just sit around all day and enjoy free handouts from the government.

[cartesian Product]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

They’ll probably never achieve the same results as the kids born on 3rd base — like the kids at Dalton, Collegiate, Riverdale, St. Paul’s, Lawrenceville, etc. — because we don’t actually have equality of opportunity, but they’re capable of doing something, and it’d be nice if more people tried to do something.

This confuses opportunity with outcome. Outcomes are not equal and shouldn't be.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

This confuses opportunity with outcome. Outcomes are not equal and shouldn't be.

How do people born to poor, dumb, neglectful parents have the same opportunity as people born to sophisticated, wealthy, well-connected, vigilant and highly involved parents?

The TRF brand of conservatism seems to veer toward the provably, observably false sometimes. Which is confusing to me.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

How do people born to poor, dumb, neglectful parents have the same opportunity as people born to sophisticated, wealthy, well-connected, vigilant and highly involved parents?

The TRF brand of conservatism seems to veer toward the provably, observably false sometimes. Which is confusing to me.

Couldn’t have said it better.

We often forget how fortunate we are if raised in a home with one or two loving parents . Yes there are exceptions to everything and some do manage to succeed from dismal up bringings, but they are definitely not in the majority.

I guess I come by my views honestly, being married to a wonderful woman who has devoted her life to helping the under privileged.

[cartesian Product]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

How do people born to poor, dumb, neglectful parents have the same opportunity as people born to sophisticated, wealthy, well-connected, vigilant and highly involved parents?

Advantages are not the same as opportunity either. A fair shake is when everyone is given a fair chance to succeed. Society should eliminate illegal barriers such as those based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and age. Then it is up to individual effort. Much of the difference in outcomes is culture-related.

[cartesian Product]

Originally Posted by brandrea

We often forget how fortunate we are if raised in a home with one or two loving parents .

Society is not responsible for that. That is cultural.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

Society is not responsible for that. That is cultural.

I’m not sure I understand your point of view.

Enlighten me please.

[cartesian Product]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I’m not sure I understand your point of view.

Enlighten me please.

Parenting, divorce, and single parent births are largely a consequence of cultural influence.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

Society is not responsible for that. That is cultural.

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

Parenting, divorce, and single parent births are largely a consequence of cultural influence.

I’m still not sure I understand your perspective.

If two people decide to make a baby, what does your “culture” say they should do?

I haven’t had my coffee yet but I’m still not following

[Blansky]

My take on this model and the implications.

1. the Yard Sale Model is not economic policy but instead statistical physics done by mathematicians to help explain how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which is happening.

2. some are taking the model as literal as in how you "bet" 20% or how luck is involved, or hard work creates wealth etc etc. I think the model is merely a way to show that without intervention, and all things being (people) being equal (which obviously they're not) that taken to its forgone conclusion, by the end of the financial interactions between 2 or 2 million, that ONE person ends up with all the marbles. Every time.

3. the 1 percent now have almost 50% of all the worlds wealth and growing.

4. some people believe that "redistribution of wealth" means that lazy poor people are getting free money from the hard working rich. When in reality, wealth is being redistributed daily all over the place and obviously by the model and it seems by reality, upwards and not downwards, if the 1% keep getting more of it.

5. being poor costs more money than being rich.

6. the model uses the outcome of the first transaction as the defining outcome of the model. Lose first and you will continually spiral down in loss of wealth. Win the first, and you continue to climb because your 20% gambled is less of a gamble.

7. the first loss of the transaction that sets you on the down spiral is just a metaphor for who starts out with the most wealth will always win the game. Call it luck, call it winning the ovarian lottery, call it being born on second base....whatever.

8. to stop the eventual outcome, of one person eventually winning/owning everything, there needs to be controls to head him off, and taxation, although never leveling the playing field, slows down his progress of owning everything.

9. as this model illustrates, much like Anti-Trust laws which stops (supposedly) one business from buying up all its competition until it would eventually own every business, taxation on the top 1% would slow or halt the trend of a few people controlling not only all the wealth but also all the governments or oligarchies.

This link was at the bottom of the original article I posted...https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ty-inevitable/

[330ci]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

I applaud your post... even had a lil tear in my eyes at the end (seriously).

It is pretty sad.

The Athenians had it right back in the day. Whoever paid the most in taxes was the richest person lol the goal was to rebuild your wealth as fast as possible as that proved you were better in business

[cartesian Product]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I’m still not sure I understand your perspective.

If two people decide to make a baby, what does your “culture” say they should do?

I haven’t had my coffee yet but I’m still not following

That’s okay. I’ve had enough caffeine for both of us. 😆

I may have misinterpreted your thoughts.

Single parents and careless parents disadvantage their children. The cure for that is changing the culture. Society owes the child a fair chance to succeed by eliminating illegal barriers.

[pickettt]

This is about to go off the rails.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by pickettt

This is about to go off the rails.

It started off the rails. The loosely veiled political opinions began with the suggestion that the article had merit in the first place.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

Advantages are not the same as opportunity either. A fair shake is when everyone is given a fair chance to succeed. Society should eliminate illegal barriers such as those based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and age. Then it is up to individual effort. Much of the difference in outcomes is culture-related.

So a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, born to an unstable single mom with a carousel of lowlife boyfriends, may lack certain advantages that would be conducive to becoming successful but nevertheless retains the technical opportunity to become successful?

Some people just get a crappy start, which is an issue that transcends race, religion or culture. For example: alcoholic parents devastate children across all social classes, races, and cultures.

In my experience, overcoming being poor is a lot easier for those who are emotionally stable and resilient, which are exactly the qualities a bad upbringing is likely to rob a person of.

[cartesian Product]

Originally Posted by Maleg

It started off the rails. The loosely veiled political opinions began with the suggestion that the article had merit in the first place.

Off the rails means what? The contributions seem respectful and civil. Can we expect more?

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Maleg

It started off the rails. The loosely veiled political opinions began with the suggestion that the article had merit in the first place.

Just a discussion about how a statistical model tries to prove that fewer and fewer people will/are owning everything.

If everything is a zero sum game, then eventually there are very few winners and this model just projects that on a theoretical level it ends at one person.

If you looked at business on any one sector, and if they were unfettered, that soon there would only be one business (a monopoly) in that sector. We've seen that.

And in any zero sum game, there is only one eventual winner.

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by Blansky

My take on this model and the implications.

1. the Yard Sale Model is not economic policy but instead statistical physics done by mathematicians to help explain how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which is happening.

2. some are taking the model as literal as in how you "bet" 20% or how luck is involved, or hard work creates wealth etc etc. I think the model is merely a way to show that without intervention, and all things being (people) being equal (which obviously they're not) that taken to its forgone conclusion, by the end of the financial interactions between 2 or 2 million, that ONE person ends up with all the marbles. Every time.

3. the 1 percent now have almost 50% of all the worlds wealth and growing.

4. some people believe that "redistribution of wealth" means that lazy poor people are getting free money from the hard working rich. When in reality, wealth is being redistributed daily all over the place and obviously by the model and it seems by reality, upwards and not downwards, if the 1% keep getting more of it.

5. being poor costs more money than being rich.

6. the model uses the outcome of the first transaction as the defining outcome of the model. Lose first and you will continually spiral down in loss of wealth. Win the first, and you continue to climb because your 20% gambled is less of a gamble.

7. the first loss of the transaction that sets you on the down spiral is just a metaphor for who starts out with the most wealth will always win the game. Call it luck, call it winning the ovarian lottery, call it being born on second base....whatever.

8. to stop the eventual outcome, of one person eventually winning/owning everything, there needs to be controls to head him off, and taxation, although never leveling the playing field, slows down his progress of owning everything.

9. as this model illustrates, much like Anti-Trust laws which stops (supposedly) one business from buying up all its competition until it would eventually own every business, taxation on the top 1% would slow or halt the trend of a few people controlling not only all the wealth but also all the governments or oligarchies.

This link was at the bottom of the original article I posted...https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ty-inevitable/

Again, The Yard Sale theory is too simplistic and doesn't account for infinite variables in life.

You've been down this road before with other posts so it seems it doesn't really sink in with your constant theory. In this country anyway, nearly 90% of millionaires are self made so they did not come by their wealth by inheritance. Even the richest billionaires did not start out that way, at least in this country.

You also mention that the top 1% own 50% of the wealth. In your state of CA, the top 1% account for 50% of the tax revenue and 40% nationally so it would seem the progressive tax code is working.

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by Maleg

It started off the rails. The loosely veiled political opinions began with the suggestion that the article had merit in the first place.

I wouldn't call it "loosely veiled" political opinion - it's pretty overt considering the subsequent posts.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

Again, The Yard Sale theory is too simplistic and doesn't account for infinite variables in life.

You've been down this road before with other posts so it seems it doesn't really sink in with your constant theory. In this country anyway, nearly 90% of millionaires are self made so they did not come by their wealth by inheritance. Even the richest billionaires did not start out that way, at least in this country.

You also mention that the top 1% own 50% of the wealth. In your state of CA, the top 1% account for 50% of the tax revenue and 40% nationally so it would seem the progressive tax code is working.

Even if everything you say is true, the fact still remains that fewer and fewer people in the world are owning more and more if it. The model is just trying to point out why.

So using every true or anecdotal statistic against the theory, the world is still heading for more and more inequality.

And more and more inequality leads to wars, unrest, failing of democracies etc etc. That's the big picture stuff.

It's not emotional, it's not political. It's just sitting above the noise, looking at history, looking at human nature, and wondering how this all plays out as this century continues.

We saw how last century played out, which I was around for half of it. I've got no real stake in the consequences. I'll be toast in 10 years more or less, with no kids.

[cartesian Product]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

So a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, born to an unstable single mom with a carousel of lowlife boyfriends, may lack certain advantages that would be conducive to becoming successful but nevertheless retains the technical opportunity to become successful?

Some people just get a crappy start, which is an issue that transcends race, religion or culture. For example: alcoholic parents devastate children across all social classes, races, and cultures.

1. The unstable single mom with a carousel of low-life boyfriends is a prime example of a circular cultural problem that needs fixing from within. It can’t be legislated nor does redistributing wealth resolve it.

2. Success is a subjective term.

3. Having the right to the pursuit of happiness is not a guarantee of it.

4. Some people find themselves within a set of jealously guarded exceptions [the child with FAS might fit this] where the government needs to provide limited temporary assistance. Generally, this is the role of family and charity.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

So a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, born to an unstable single mom with a carousel of lowlife boyfriends, may lack certain advantages that would be conducive to becoming successful but nevertheless retains the technical opportunity to become successful?

Some people just get a crappy start, which is an issue that transcends race, religion or culture. For example: alcoholic parents devastate children across all social classes, races, and cultures.

In my experience, overcoming being poor is a lot easier for those who are emotionally stable and resilient, which are exactly the qualities a bad upbringing is likely to rob a person of.

My best friend was from a “crappy start”. He went into the military, used GI Bill to get a degree, worked hard all his life, and retired a multi-millionaire. Opportunities are not guarantees of equal outcome, but there isn’t inherent inequality in the available opportunities.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

1. The unstable single mom with a carousel of low-life boyfriends is a prime example of a circular cultural problem that needs fixing from within. It can’t be legislated nor does redistributing wealth resolve it.

2. Success is a subjective term.

3. Having the right to the pursuit of happiness is not a guarantee of it.

4. Some people find themselves within a set of jealously guarded exceptions [the child with FAS might fit this] where the government needs to provide limited temporary assistance. Generally, this is the role of family and charity.

Originally Posted by Maleg

My best friend was from a “crappy start”. He went into the military, used GI Bill to get a degree, worked hard all his life, and retired a multi-millionaire. Opportunities are not guarantees of equal outcome, but there isn’t inherent inequality in the available opportunities.

My closing comment is that extremism begets extremism. The extreme policies you don’t like, that place empathy above everything else whether it makes sense or not, are an equal and opposite reaction to your “no empathy, no matter what and regardless of whether it makes any sense” style views.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Maleg

My best friend was from a “crappy start”. He went into the military, used GI Bill to get a degree, worked hard all his life, and retired a multi-millionaire. Opportunities are not guarantees of equal outcome, but there isn’t inherent inequality in the available opportunities.

While you aren't a fan of the thread, which is fine, I don't think anecdotal instances of some people doing well and others not doing well is what the model is trying to demonstrate.

It's not about hard work and getting the brass ring, it's above the street level, community level and country level.

It's the global phenomena of the results of zero sum game ideas and the end result is always one tiny group of winners and massive number of losers.

One could try to envision a world in say 30 years where very very few people control everything. Maybe for some that would be a good outcome. But it wasn't the dream of what democracy would deliver. Maybe democracy is an outdated idea. Lots of people don't like it. By design is pretty chaotic.

Maybe one world autocrat is better. No decisions to make.

Wouldn't be my choice but that's what the future may hold. But fewer and fewer people are now making the decisions because they have the money. My read of the model is just explaining how it's happening.

[cartesian Product]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

My closing comment is that extremism begets extremism. The extreme policies you don’t like, that place empathy above everything else whether it makes sense or not, are an equal and opposite reaction to your “no empathy, no matter what and regardless of whether it makes any sense” style views.

No one has cornered the market on compassion or empathy. This discussion is largely about how to deal with the lack of personal responsibility, accountability, and empathy within families and community culture. Redistribution of wealth does not help them and actually harms society.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Blansky

While you aren't a fan of the thread, which is fine, I don't think anecdotal instances of some people doing well and others not doing well is what the model is trying to demonstrate.

It's not about hard work and getting the brass ring, it's above the street level, community level and country level.

It's the global phenomena of the results of zero sum game ideas and the end result is always one tiny group of winners and massive number of losers.

One could try to envision a world in say 30 years where very very few people control everything. Maybe for some that would be a good outcome. But it wasn't the dream of what democracy would deliver. Maybe democracy is an outdated idea. Lots of people don't like it. By design is pretty chaotic.

Maybe one world autocrat is better. No decisions to make.

Wouldn't be my choice but that's what the future may hold. But fewer and fewer people are now making the decisions because they have the money. My read of the model is just explaining how it's happening.

I stated back in post #2 to this thread that the article you posted was inherently flawed. Others subsequently agreed. The post you referenced here was a reply to one poster, not to your opinions about the aforementioned flawed article.

You have a pattern of posting links to what most would consider social justice articles, and then asking for a nonpolitical discussion. As if it’s possible for people who are not educationally qualified in the nuances of the topic to discuss it any way other than an uninformed and opinionated manner. The opinions on social justice issues are inherently political in nature.

The fact that everyone has been civil and respectful to each other does not impugn the notion that the topic is inherently divisive and likely to offend some members of the community. Which raises the question, why do you start a trigger thread on a watch forum?

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Maleg

I stated back in post #2 to this thread that the article you posted was inherently flawed. Others subsequently agreed. The post you referenced here was a reply to one poster, not to your opinions about the aforementioned flawed article.

You have a pattern of posting links to what most would consider social justice articles, and then asking for a nonpolitical discussion. As if it’s possible for people who are not educationally qualified in the nuances of the topic to discuss it any way other than an uninformed and opinionated manner. The opinions on social justice issues are inherently political in nature.

The fact that everyone has been civil and respectful to each other does not impugn the notion that the topic is inherently divisive and likely to offend some members of the community. Which raises the question, why do you start a trigger thread on a watch forum?

Well it seems these days to some people everything is political. Buying a watch is political.

And virtually every thread on the site is a trigger to someone. Which watch to buy is divisive to someone.

Social justice is a bad thing? The golden rule is a bad thing?

A lot of us have been here a long time, (you've been here a couple of months), and we often discuss everything, with some going better than others. But most people have fun.

If a thread bothers you, don't participate.