What is the average family net worth in the USA?

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In many societies there seems to be the notion that an individual becoming wealthy as possible is somehow inherently good for society at large.

Yes, the so-called ''trickle down'' fallacy.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Sounds like arrogance to me.

Perhaps. And I would not disagree that Andy Murray is arrogant. Mohamed Ali was doubtless arrogant. Winston Churchill was certainly arrogant. I understand that Sir Laurence Olivier was arrogant. On this basis I would say that there is something to be said for arrogance.

 

43 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Did he actually create wealth, or did he take it from others?
Often "massive cost savings" means reduced employment somewhere along the line

He created wealth, introducing novel engineering solutions that extended the versatility of exisitng equipment.

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In many societies there seems to be the notion that an individual becoming wealthy as possible is somehow inherently good for society at large.

 

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, the so-called ''trickle down'' fallacy.

We can't all be self-employed given the complexity of our current economy, would that it was, some of us need an employer. Trickle down doesn't work because it depends on the wealthy using their money fairly, but we all know they tend to hoard it, that's where the government should step in to ensure they do just that, but instead of voting in someone who wants to do that, we're persuaded by fear and greed and that makes us just as culpable.  

Edited March 19, 2018 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Did he actually create wealth, or did he take it from others?
Often "massive cost savings" means reduced employment somewhere along the line.

 

Absolutely. He's rich, we should immediately start assuming he's an immoral capitalist pig who steals from others by decreasing the number of people he hired in the first place.

Which means he took it from them, not that he created wealth. Because selling things is stealing, you should actually give it away.

 

 

Seriously though. Of course, he took it from others. That's capitalism. You sell your products, services, etc, in exchange for money.

You don't print it.

And even if he did fire people doesn't inherently make him evil. He hired a number of people, realized he didn't need some of them, and somehow that translates to "taking it from others"? I mean, he still made a surplus of jobs. And whether you and I agree or not doesn't matter, it's his company. 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[John Cuthber]

17 minutes ago, Area54 said:

On this basis I would say that there is something to be said for arrogance.

Non sequitur.

 

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Absolutely. He's rich, we should immediately start assuming he's an immoral capitalist pig who steals from others by decreasing the number of people he hired in the first place.

Which means he took it from them, not that he created wealth. Because selling things is stealing, you should actually give it away.

 

 

Seriously though. Of course, he took it from others. That's capitalism. You sell your products, services, etc, in exchange for money.

You don't print it.

 

Nice straw man.

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Nice straw man.

 

You introduced the concept of "massive cost savings" that this guy was doing.

Which nobody mentioned except you.

 

 

 

And you missed the point as well. The other part you didn't quote.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Non sequitur.

Au contraire. Laurence Olivier brought pleasure to many who saw him on stage, or screen. His arrogance was an essential part of his character. Without it the peformances would have been lacking and the pleasure would have been rest. So to for each of those named and countless more besides. That being the case arrogance is to be applauded in certain circumstances.

All of which is rather irrelvant to my counter to the original point from String Junky whose perception of arrogance is, I suspect, due far more to my mediocre attempt to describe a charming, dynamic individual who enriched the lives of his employees and made a significant contribution to an entire industry. If arrogance was his motivator then all I can say is we need a damn sight more arrogant people out there.

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Seriously though. Of course, he took it from others. That's capitalism. You sell your products, services, etc, in exchange for money.

22 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You don't print it.

And we come full circle, yes we do print money, unregulated capitalism means he took it from others and refused to give some of it back to those who did the printing.

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And we come full circle, yes we do print money, unregulated capitalism means he took it from others and refused to give some it back to those who did the printing.

 

I didn't realize we had unregulated capitalism.

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And we come full circle, yes we do print money, unregulated capitalism means he took it from others and refused to give it back to those who did the printing.

 

I'm exempt from taxes since I'm 15.

I work as an electrician and a farm hard occasionally. 

Guess I'm part of the problem of unregulated capitalism because I'm not giving it back.

[dimreepr]

Just now, zapatos said:

I didn't realize we had unregulated capitalism.

And getting more unregulated every year, how else do you explain the exponential growth in the pages of our their taxes?

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm exempt from taxes since I'm 15.

I work as an electrician and a farm hard occasionally. 

Guess I'm part of the problem of unregulated capitalism because I'm not giving it back.

now that's a strawman... 

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And getting more unregulated every year, how else do you explain the exponential growth in the pages of our their taxes?

 

So we are going from "unregulated" to "more unregulated"?

Are some animals more equal than others?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

So we are going from "unregulated" to "more unregulated"?

Are some animals more equal than others?

Spare me the semantics and read back, please.

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And getting more unregulated every year, how else do you explain the exponential growth in the pages of our their taxes?

Yes.

This is why the poverty rate was 15.1% in 2010.

And 14.5% in 2014

And 13.5% in 2015

And 12.7% in 2016.

And 11.8% in 2017.

 

For reference, according to the Census Bureau(same place as all of these statistics actually), the record low was 11.1% in 1973.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Spare me the semantics and read back, please.

Spare me the avoidance of defending your assertion. How did we get from some guy having a successful company to "...yes we do print money, unregulated capitalism means he took it from others and refused to give some of it back to those who did the printing"? That's quite a leap from an unnamed successful company to unregulated capitalism and refusing to pay taxes.

[John Cuthber]

24 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Au contraire. Laurence Olivier brought pleasure to many who saw him on stage, or screen. His arrogance was an essential part of his character. Without it the peformances would have been lacking and the pleasure would have been rest. So to for each of those named and countless more besides. That being the case arrogance is to be applauded in certain circumstances.

All of which is rather irrelvant to my counter to the original point from String Junky whose perception of arrogance is, I suspect, due far more to my mediocre attempt to describe a charming, dynamic individual who enriched the lives of his employees and made a significant contribution to an entire industry. If arrogance was his motivator then all I can say is we need a damn sight more arrogant people out there.

 

56 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Perhaps. And I would not disagree that Andy Murray is arrogant. Mohamed Ali was doubtless arrogant. Winston Churchill was certainly arrogant. I understand that Sir Laurence Olivier was arrogant. On this basis I would say that there is something to be said for arrogance.

On the basis that Olivier's arrogance was what people liked - which doesn't make much sense*  you can say that arrogance isn't all bad. (Please note that's not what you had actually said).
And even then it only holds if you can show that more people wouldn't have liked him better if he wasn't such a smug guy.

 

Just saying a bunch of people were arrogant isn't grounds for saying it's a good thing.
I could point out that Churchill was a heavy drinking cigar smoker- that doesn't make it a good thing in its own right, does it?

Well, in much the same way, pointing out that he was arrogant doesn't indicate that arrogance is a good thing

So, in fact, what you said was a non sequitur.

 

* What Olivier was famous for doing is pretending to be someone else, so his claim to fame is entirely independent of what his own natural persona might be.

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

We can't all be self-employed given the complexity of our current economy, would that it was, some of us need an employer. Trickle down doesn't work because it depends on the wealthy using their money fairly, but we all know they tend to hoard it, that's where the government should step in to ensure they do just that, but instead of voting in someone who wants to do that, we're persuaded by fear and greed and that makes us just as culpable.  

There is not a direct correlation between how much wealth an individual has and the number of jobs they create or number of people they employ. Some wealthy people employ tens of thousands of people while other just a small pool of staff. Also some large companies which employ many people are arguable harmful for the overall economy of an area. We are all familiar with the debate surrounding walmart and the number of smaller businesses with better paying jobs they replace. Simply because a wealthy person employees someone it doesn't automatically make them good. One of the most important and most nuanced responsibility local govts have is zoning business districts and figuring out which companies to allow, what their standards must be, and where they should be located. It impacts public safety, traffic, housing costs, quality of life, and etc. Every job isn't automatically a good job just like all wealthy people aren't inherently good. There are many variables. 

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Every job isn't automatically a good job just like all wealthy people aren't inherently good. There are many variables. 

 

Every higher paying job isn't automatically a better job, just like all wealthy people aren't inherently bad. There are many variables.

[Area54]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

 

On the basis that Olivier's arrogance was what people liked - which doesn't make much sense*  you can say that arrogance isn't all bad. (Please note that's not what you had actually said).
And even then it only holds if you can show that more people wouldn't have liked him better if he wasn't such a smug guy.

 

Just saying a bunch of people were arrogant isn't grounds for saying it's a good thing.
I could point out that Churchill was a heavy drinking cigar smoker- that doesn't make it a good thing in its own right, does it?

Well, in much the same way, pointing out that he was arrogant doesn't indicate that arrogance is a good thing

So, in fact, what you said was a non sequitur.

 

* What Olivier was famous for doing is pretending to be someone else, so his claim to fame is entirely independent of what his own natural persona might be.

People did not like the arrogance of Olivier. Most people were probably completely unaware of it. Yet it was that arrogance that enabled the expression of his masterful skills as an actor. The same applies to the other examples I gave and the millions I didn't. One could make a sound argument that nothing much gets achieved without a liberal dose of arrogance.

That makes my playing of the arrogance card completely on topic. Any perception that it is not is due either to my lack of skills in writing, or your lack of skills in reading, or some combination of the two. My natural humility, which I arrogantly assert is humbler than most, leads me to suspect the first.

[John Cuthber]

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes.

This is why the poverty rate was 15.1% in 2010.

And 14.5% in 2014

And 13.5% in 2015

And 12.7% in 2016.

And 11.8% in 2017.

 

For reference, according to the Census Bureau(same place as all of these statistics actually), the record low was 11.1% in 1973.

For a rate that should be zero, that's pretty  poor.
The unregulated  nature of capitalism is shown up better by this statistic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Income_inequality_panel_-_v1.png

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Yet it was that arrogance that enabled the expression of his masterful skills as an actor.

Again, that's a non sequitur. Good, yet humble, actors exist.

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

For a rate that should be zero, that's pretty  poor.

1

Uh hu. 

Apparently, the UK is running rampant in unregulated capitalism than at 16.7%, and the EU, in general, is terrible at 17.3%.

Additionally, over 30% of the population was just barely above the poverty line in the UK.

For a rate that should be zero, that's really poor.

 

 

This is not a battle of "who's worse". However, you're going to have a tough time convincing me the U.S. has more regulations on businesses then the UK.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Again, that's a non sequitur. Good, yet humble, actors exist.

FFS, read what I wrote. I was describing the situation with Sir Laurence. That's why I used the personal pronoun his in the clause " Yet it was that arrogance that enabled the expression of his masterful skills."

I was neither excluding nor including a similar effect with other actors. I am sure there are actors whose humility enables the expression of their masterful skills, but I was not discussing them. I was discussing that sub-set of actors and humans in general whose achievements are predicated, to a greater or lesser extent, upon their arrogance. As such my questioned post was relevant. End of. Post as many responses on this as you wish. There shall be no sequitur from me!

[John Cuthber]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Uh hu. 

Apparently, the UK is running rampant in unregulated capitalism than at 16.7%, and the EU, in general, is terrible at 17.3%.

For a rate that should be zero, that's really poor.

 

Yes, it is.

The shape of the income distribution may complicate things, as my the provision of a welfare state  (and even the definition of "poverty".

As I said, there's a better way to spot unrestrained Capitalism- the fact that the Rich are getting richer and the Poor are getting poorer.
It ought to be one of the roles of government  to restrict the extent to which that happens. At the moment very few governments seem to be doing so. This may be because most so-called democracies are de facto plutocracies.

Just now, Area54 said:

FFS, read what I wrote. I was describing the situation with Sir Laurence. That's why I used the personal pronoun his in the clause " Yet it was that arrogance that enabled the expression of his masterful skills."

I was neither excluding nor including a similar effect with other actors. I am sure there are actors whose humility enables the expression of their masterful skills, but I was not discussing them. I was discussing that sub-set of actors and humans in general whose achievements are predicated, to a greater or lesser extent, upon their arrogance. As such my questioned post was relevant. End of. Post as many responses on this as you wish. There shall be no sequitur from me!

What you failed to show was that there was a causal link between his skills as an actor and his arrogance.

Yes, he's both a good actor and he's arrogant.

But one DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE OTHER, and that's what non sequitur means.

 

So, can you show that he's good because he's smug?

Isn't it at least as likely that he's smug because he's good?

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes, it is.

The shape of the income distribution may complicate things, as my the provision of a welfare state  (and even the definition of "poverty".

As I said, there's a better way to spot unrestrained Capitalism- the fact that the Rich are getting richer and the Poor are getting poorer.
It ought to be one of the roles of government  to restrict the extent to which that happens. At the moment very few governments seem to be doing so. This may be because most so-called democracies are de facto plutocracies.

Great.

So the mention of a guy who's successful in business starts you on the path to complain.

 

[Area54]

We are so far from the OP that I suppose a further diversion does not matter. Excessive wealth may get us to Mars via Elon Musk and Space-X, much sooner than via conventional government approaches. For me, that scores points for excessive wealth.

Separately, I trust those questioning excessive wealth are distinguishing between those who create wealth and those who merely manipulate it, the latter including some of the world's largest wankers bankers.