of course, everyone here is probably in the world richest 1%. We have a whole lot of unnecessary and wasteful things and habits compared to the vast majority of people in the world.
Chris, could you change that link? thanks
The Google Maps link? Why?
EDIT: Let me see if I have this right...you're telling me to dump the same link you posted earlier in the thread?
This is the part of wealth the freaks me out, when you shoot right past "living as well as any human being could possibly want" to "insane ostentation for its own sake".
And frankly, people like you scare me, I do not want someone telling me what I could do with my land/home, I dont want some one deciding what is "too much" or "too good" Plenty of people have that much (or more) land for their horses and stables, but because he wants a tennis, and 2 B-ball courts, and a golf course and not ponies, he is bad, concieted or somehow a lesseer human being?!?
He made his money playing basketball, why not have a court or two...I plan to make my living working in IT after I graduate, If I had a few powermacs and 30 inch displays in my home a few years from now, Do I have insane ostentation?
Gosh, thanks everybody for the lessons in dumb-fuck economics.
Now, if only we could concentrate more wealth into even fewer hands, then the rest of us would be sitting pretty, what with all the house-cleaning and pool vacuuming and grounds keeping and brass polishing gigs.
Obviously, the only way to get money into the hands of the average American is to make sure that very wealthiest among us get to live like medieval kings, so that they might be obliged to dribble some of their largess on the peasantry.
It tell you, 1850 is shaping up to be a banner year!
The more free people are in their actions, the greater the distribution of outcomes.
i.e. If you are free to do whatever you want, some people will fail to become rich, or will choose to do something that is guarenteed to not make them rich.
The Gini coefficient represents this mathematically:
The higher the gini coefficient, the greater the dispairity between rich and poor (and this coefficient has risen slightly in the US over time).
But the Gini coefficient does not only measure inequality. In the absense of government corruption and crime (which is largely the case in a democracy), it also measures freedom (because freedom gives you the chance to become rich or to fail and lose your wealth more readily). As long as we do not have an oppressive government, the higher the gini coefficient the better, because that means that we are all the most free to reach our potential.
It seems to me that the people who are bitter about the disparity between rich and poor fall into the following categories:
1. Rich people who are guilty of their wealth
2. Poor young people who are pessimistic about their ability to become rich through their own efforts.
3. Poor middle-aged or old people, who resent the success of others.
The bitterness that I see is all individual psychology - no amount of taxation can fix #1 and #3 - but #2 can be counteracted by a strong social security system (so young people feel safe to grow old), and by abundant education choices.
The reality is that we live in an abundant society, and fears about poverty, homelessness and starvation (which is what you are really worried about when you are worried about the differences between rich and poor) are non-rational. Unless you are so insane that you can't get to the welfare office, our social safety net covers you.
It seems to me that the people who are bitter about the disparity between rich and poor fall into the following categories:
1. Rich people who are guilty of their wealth
2. Poor young people who are pessimistic about their ability to become rich through their own efforts.
3. Poor middle-aged or old people, who resent the success of others.
You should also make sure to draw a distinction between "bitterness" and genuine concern about wealth disparity (especially if it is growing). Concern and bitterness are different things. The concern may be legitimate and can raise valid questions for a society to think about.
You should also make sure to draw a distinction between "bitterness" and genuine concern about wealth disparity (especially if it is growing). Concern and bitterness are different things. The concern may be legitimate and can raise valid questions for a society to think about.
That was what I was trying to do.
Here is an ideal society:
1. Define the poverty level at food/shelter/education - make sure that nobody falls below this with a welfare, unemployment and socia security system, but make it mildly unpleasent to be unemployed so that people want to work.
2. Socialise medicine and dental care, so that they are affordable at poverty level.
3. Limit taxes and unnessessary governement spending
4. Maximise the freedom of individual behaviour, as long as people don't hurt each other or impinge on each other's freedoms.
You would have huge variation between rich and poor in this society (more than the current US society has), but it would also be better to live in than our current society.
You only need to be concerned about the variation between rich and poor if you are unfairly excluded from opertunity, or if you are in danger.
I don't think that either of these two conditions really exist in the USA right now to any great extent, so concern about variations between rich and poor is just envy.
Self sufficient living really isn't an option for those born into modern society.
Unfortunately, those living in poverty would be better off in a non-industrialized/info-age society. For them, quality of life isn't improved by being a member of the "system". Instead, they work mind numbing jobs and suffer from a wide variety of environmentally caused mental illnessess. Most would be better off in just about any socio/economic system than which they are currently living.
People like us have greatly benefitted from the current economic system and the society spawned from it. However, less successful humans, those less adept at valuable rolls in modern society, have actually been hurt. It is for this reason that I am in favor of structuring our tax code such that everyone bennefits from huge conglomerates and multinational corporations. Membership in the system isn't optional. The successful amoung us shouldn't have absolute free reign to capitalize on the work of less successful humans.
The current inequitable distribution of wealth is the type of thing that makes the average joe eventual rise up and break the system from which they have little to gain.
Most would be better off in just about any socio/economic system than which they are currently living.
Care to back that up with an example? I can think of plenty of counter examples (7-11 employee vs Russian Serf), but I can't think of any other society where the lowest paid person would have a better life than the lowest paid person in our society.
Maybe a hunter-gatherer society, but to get there you would have to kill about 5.5 billion people. We had to transition to agriculture because our population density got too high.
We work more hours per week than just about any society in history and spend the very little time with family and lifelong friends. Elderly are now required to work well past the age where they are truly efficient. It used to be that grandma lived at home and helped mom with providing an enjoyable household for the extended family. These were pleasant times even without electricity and clean sheets.
We are working longer and harder than ever and have less time for living. Granted, we can't realistically return to ages past. But I'm not wearing rose colored glasses here. Modern life isn't all that great unless you're good at playing the current economic "game". Those who aren't are getting screwed.
He made his money playing basketball, why not have a court or two...I plan to make my living working in IT after I graduate, If I had a few powermacs and 30 inch displays in my home a few years from now, Do I have insane ostentation?
No, that's good taste...now if you were buying a bunch of windows pc's on the other hand...
Well, good for Michael Jordan. If he likes to buy and live in that mansion I see nothing wrong with that! Now, the tax cuts that Bush gave to the richest americans, that's an all together different discussion. Don't blame the rich people for spending their own money, instead blame the people that gives them tax reductions they don't need, when the state (deficit...), and the people in need could use the money more than ever.
I'm nodding my head up and down. Couldn't agree more.
At 29,000 square feet, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that he has both and outdoor courts. The winters (and summers) can be brutal in northern Illinois.
If it's true that his house is 29,000 square feet then that puts perspective on something for me...you see there is currently this guy building a house in the back of my neighborhood that is (I am not joking) 61,000 square feet. It's so over the top big that it looks like a hotel is being put up in Belle Terre. A few of us refer to it as the white house because of the similarities. This is in LaPlace, Louisiana 70068 just in case you were wondering and there is nothing even remotely close to this thing here in comparison. I understand that he was injured at a chemical plant and was burned badly, as a result he won a Gigormous settlement. I also hear that he was blinded by the unfortunate insident so perhaps he is building it so big that there is no chance of him running into a wall?
I'm nodding my head up and down. Couldn't agree more.
C'mon with all that whining about how much somebody has crap. Theres no reason to blame Bush and his evil tax cuts. Back to big ass over the top houses that can live 120 people but instead house 6 (including the maid).
Comments
Originally posted by giant
of course, everyone here is probably in the world richest 1%. We have a whole lot of unnecessary and wasteful things and habits compared to the vast majority of people in the world.
Chris, could you change that link? thanks
The Google Maps link? Why?
EDIT: Let me see if I have this right...you're telling me to dump the same link you posted earlier in the thread?
Originally posted by giant
The point of private messaging is so we don't have to derail a thread.
If you are directing this to me...I don't have PM enabled.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If you are directing this to me...I don't have PM enabled.
I will be happy that you edit your thread the way Giant want.
The owner of the house should not be happy to have the adress of his house displayed on internet.
Thanks for your understanding.
Originally posted by addabox
This is the part of wealth the freaks me out, when you shoot right past "living as well as any human being could possibly want" to "insane ostentation for its own sake".
And frankly, people like you scare me, I do not want someone telling me what I could do with my land/home, I dont want some one deciding what is "too much" or "too good" Plenty of people have that much (or more) land for their horses and stables, but because he wants a tennis, and 2 B-ball courts, and a golf course and not ponies, he is bad, concieted or somehow a lesseer human being?!?
He made his money playing basketball, why not have a court or two...I plan to make my living working in IT after I graduate, If I had a few powermacs and 30 inch displays in my home a few years from now, Do I have insane ostentation?
Originally posted by addabox
Gosh, thanks everybody for the lessons in dumb-fuck economics.
Now, if only we could concentrate more wealth into even fewer hands, then the rest of us would be sitting pretty, what with all the house-cleaning and pool vacuuming and grounds keeping and brass polishing gigs.
Obviously, the only way to get money into the hands of the average American is to make sure that very wealthiest among us get to live like medieval kings, so that they might be obliged to dribble some of their largess on the peasantry.
It tell you, 1850 is shaping up to be a banner year!
The more free people are in their actions, the greater the distribution of outcomes.
i.e. If you are free to do whatever you want, some people will fail to become rich, or will choose to do something that is guarenteed to not make them rich.
The Gini coefficient represents this mathematically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
The higher the gini coefficient, the greater the dispairity between rich and poor (and this coefficient has risen slightly in the US over time).
But the Gini coefficient does not only measure inequality. In the absense of government corruption and crime (which is largely the case in a democracy), it also measures freedom (because freedom gives you the chance to become rich or to fail and lose your wealth more readily). As long as we do not have an oppressive government, the higher the gini coefficient the better, because that means that we are all the most free to reach our potential.
It seems to me that the people who are bitter about the disparity between rich and poor fall into the following categories:
1. Rich people who are guilty of their wealth
2. Poor young people who are pessimistic about their ability to become rich through their own efforts.
3. Poor middle-aged or old people, who resent the success of others.
The bitterness that I see is all individual psychology - no amount of taxation can fix #1 and #3 - but #2 can be counteracted by a strong social security system (so young people feel safe to grow old), and by abundant education choices.
The reality is that we live in an abundant society, and fears about poverty, homelessness and starvation (which is what you are really worried about when you are worried about the differences between rich and poor) are non-rational. Unless you are so insane that you can't get to the welfare office, our social safety net covers you.
Originally posted by giant
google map of jordan's house
If you look at the map, the basketball court is covered...
Originally posted by e1618978
It seems to me that the people who are bitter about the disparity between rich and poor fall into the following categories:
1. Rich people who are guilty of their wealth
2. Poor young people who are pessimistic about their ability to become rich through their own efforts.
3. Poor middle-aged or old people, who resent the success of others.
You should also make sure to draw a distinction between "bitterness" and genuine concern about wealth disparity (especially if it is growing). Concern and bitterness are different things. The concern may be legitimate and can raise valid questions for a society to think about.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You should also make sure to draw a distinction between "bitterness" and genuine concern about wealth disparity (especially if it is growing). Concern and bitterness are different things. The concern may be legitimate and can raise valid questions for a society to think about.
That was what I was trying to do.
Here is an ideal society:
1. Define the poverty level at food/shelter/education - make sure that nobody falls below this with a welfare, unemployment and socia security system, but make it mildly unpleasent to be unemployed so that people want to work.
2. Socialise medicine and dental care, so that they are affordable at poverty level.
3. Limit taxes and unnessessary governement spending
4. Maximise the freedom of individual behaviour, as long as people don't hurt each other or impinge on each other's freedoms.
You would have huge variation between rich and poor in this society (more than the current US society has), but it would also be better to live in than our current society.
You only need to be concerned about the variation between rich and poor if you are unfairly excluded from opertunity, or if you are in danger.
I don't think that either of these two conditions really exist in the USA right now to any great extent, so concern about variations between rich and poor is just envy.
Unfortunately, those living in poverty would be better off in a non-industrialized/info-age society. For them, quality of life isn't improved by being a member of the "system". Instead, they work mind numbing jobs and suffer from a wide variety of environmentally caused mental illnessess. Most would be better off in just about any socio/economic system than which they are currently living.
People like us have greatly benefitted from the current economic system and the society spawned from it. However, less successful humans, those less adept at valuable rolls in modern society, have actually been hurt. It is for this reason that I am in favor of structuring our tax code such that everyone bennefits from huge conglomerates and multinational corporations. Membership in the system isn't optional. The successful amoung us shouldn't have absolute free reign to capitalize on the work of less successful humans.
The current inequitable distribution of wealth is the type of thing that makes the average joe eventual rise up and break the system from which they have little to gain.
The owner of the house should not be happy to have the adress of his house displayed on internet.
It's public info anyway. Why does it matter?
Originally posted by skatman
It's public info anyway. Why does it matter?
The house is a private property. I will never give a pic of my house with the adress.
Most would be better off in just about any socio/economic system than which they are currently living.
Care to back that up with an example? I can think of plenty of counter examples (7-11 employee vs Russian Serf), but I can't think of any other society where the lowest paid person would have a better life than the lowest paid person in our society.
Maybe a hunter-gatherer society, but to get there you would have to kill about 5.5 billion people. We had to transition to agriculture because our population density got too high.
We are working longer and harder than ever and have less time for living. Granted, we can't realistically return to ages past. But I'm not wearing rose colored glasses here. Modern life isn't all that great unless you're good at playing the current economic "game". Those who aren't are getting screwed.
We work more hours per week than just about any society in history
You have an overly romantic view of history.
Our socieity, even at the lowest economic level, has it better than any society in history.
We have longer life expectancy, more leasure time, easier work schedule, more human rights, more entertainment choices.
A welfare recipient has a much better life in most respects than a mideavel king.
And that comparison is for straight white males. Multiply by 10x for everyone else (women, gays, jews, blacks, etc).
Originally posted by a_greer
He made his money playing basketball, why not have a court or two...I plan to make my living working in IT after I graduate, If I had a few powermacs and 30 inch displays in my home a few years from now, Do I have insane ostentation?
No, that's good taste...now if you were buying a bunch of windows pc's on the other hand...
Originally posted by Power Apple
Well, good for Michael Jordan. If he likes to buy and live in that mansion I see nothing wrong with that! Now, the tax cuts that Bush gave to the richest americans, that's an all together different discussion. Don't blame the rich people for spending their own money, instead blame the people that gives them tax reductions they don't need, when the state (deficit...), and the people in need could use the money more than ever.
I'm nodding my head up and down. Couldn't agree more.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
At 29,000 square feet, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that he has both and outdoor courts. The winters (and summers) can be brutal in northern Illinois.
BTW it is actually in Highland Park, IL:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.20...7532&t=k&hl=en
If it's true that his house is 29,000 square feet then that puts perspective on something for me...you see there is currently this guy building a house in the back of my neighborhood that is (I am not joking) 61,000 square feet. It's so over the top big that it looks like a hotel is being put up in Belle Terre. A few of us refer to it as the white house because of the similarities. This is in LaPlace, Louisiana 70068 just in case you were wondering and there is nothing even remotely close to this thing here in comparison. I understand that he was injured at a chemical plant and was burned badly, as a result he won a Gigormous settlement. I also hear that he was blinded by the unfortunate insident so perhaps he is building it so big that there is no chance of him running into a wall?
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I'm nodding my head up and down. Couldn't agree more.
C'mon with all that whining about how much somebody has crap. Theres no reason to blame Bush and his evil tax cuts. Back to big ass over the top houses that can live 120 people but instead house 6 (including the maid).