Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo
Denmark's neighbours are Norway, which is the richest nation in the world, and Sweden and Germany. All of these nations have a better standard of living than the United States of America. If you live there, you're not going to jump the border to Denmark. Are you.
America's neighbours are Canada and Mexico.
Denmark is not America. Not every nation in the world has a border on Mexico. Get a fucking passport. You will see this for yourself.
And your figures are totally made up. "We probably had five million people sneak into the United States last year." This figure. Use your brain. This figure is impossible. You have made it up.
Damn Mumbo Jumbo, got enough hate going there for Mexicans? I don't believe I said any number you are quoting there. Since you didn't use the quote feature, as usual, you're just making crap up.
You are right that Denmark is not America. First most of the neighbors you cite are separated from it by bodies of water. Secondly, what you should have noted is that not all of Denmark's neighbors are former colonies who were fucked over by the continent and now someone else is expected to take up the toil for cleaning up the mess.
Perhaps we should just send the EU a big oil "damn you fucked up" bill for any immigration costs we have. They appear to have plenty of money to redistribute. Sure their historic advantage that you note and they exploit today wasn't created by colonialism at all. Also anyone using that advantage to attempt to lord over the countries that were previously colonized would absolutely be racist for ignoring such history and proclaiming one group to be better than the other.
Originally Posted by tonton
What a bizarre measure of the quality of a country.
More people shoplift from Wal•Mart than Gucci. So Wal•Mart must be a better store.
That is crazy reasoning. Now imagine if someone started an entire thread based around the concept of two numbers matching with no context provided at all. Wouldn't anyone who would support that reasoning be an absolute idiot?
Originally Posted by tonton
I don't think so. I think 30% would be is far beyond where the theories of the free market bunch would actually start to take effect and wipe out entrepreneurism and hard work. Productivity would halt and the whole nation would be poor. This is exactly how communists systems have always failed. Due to human nature, we do not work our asses off for the better good as long as doing so won't make us any better off than the next guy. We need a good amount of capitalism to keep us productive.
The difference between me and Jazzy and MJ1970 is exactly how much capitalism is best. They believe in 100% capitalism (or 90%) and I think that's just as disastrous as 100% Communism. What we need is middle ground. We need to give entrepreneurs the opportunity to build the Ikeas and the Nokias and the Siemenses and the wind turbine companies to maintain the level of economic progress. And we need to give the Average Joe the feeling that their hard work is making them happy. AND we need to give the less fortunate a tolerable basic standard of living so that they don't have to worry about how to pay for the doctor if they get the flu or whether they will have to eat from a garbage can again next week.
What income disparity does is it makes the goal of wealth impossible for most people to attain, so they give up. It's simply not worth working 120 hours a week when your boss works 50 and has 100x more money.
Apparently you aren't aware that government spending is over 30% of our GDP. Every time the minimum wage has been raised, the unemployment rate has gone up. Likewise extensions in unemployment benefits have raised the long term unemployment rate. Reality is exactly the opposite of what you claim here. Also, strangely inconsistent, you claim profoundly progressive taxes are acceptable because the rich can still have a high standard of living even without the money whereas the poor will barely get by. Then here you declare they'll simply stop working because they have such choices as to whether to work or not work and get ahead or not get ahead.
The biggest predictor of income is still education. Why is greed assigned as the primary cause when marital status and education are very strong proxies for income attainment? It's very clear marriage is on the decline, especially for the lower classes. You look at household formation and note more and more single parent families. My friend's sister is a great example. She barely passed high school. She was always about the drama and the parties and has a couple kids now while working at Hooters. She is considered a "household." Meanwhile in the circles my wife and I often frequent, people are married, educated and often have double incomes.
I would bet that when controlled for such factors, they would account for the overwhelming majority growing wealth disparities, especially when we look at quintiles and not outliers. The top and bottom 1% of anything never show true trends. They are outliers by definition. You look at that chart and note to yourself those households with educated couples earning, on average $102-156K and see the single parent, lack of education households trying to compare while earning $20-28k. The gap will keep growing because ever larger numbers of females are entering the workforce, becoming educated and bringing home bigger paychecks.