Anonymous
10/15/2014 10:22
Subject: Re:What is your definition of Middle class, upper middle class and lower middle class
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:PP above. I'll offer my evidence first:
How Wealth Reduces Compassion
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
I'm the PP you were replying to. This thread just took a turn for the crazy. Unfortunately I am not as well researched as those who are consumed by their irrational views of the world. You asked for evidence, and then proceed to offer your own, which amounts to narrowly focused analysis based on cherry picked data segments. We are talking about the general, not the few.
How do we know that there's a positive correlation between money/education and integrity/ethics? Aside from rational logical deduction, the broad data demonstrates this by showing that higher income and better education leads to less crime. There are numerous analysis showing this data, here's just one after a quick Google search:
http://web.utk.edu/~leon/stat571/Nightingale/Florence%20Nightingale%20Museum%20Web%20Site_files/small.htm
With regards to charity, most of the studies out there address the issue by performing the analysis on a percent-of-income basis, rather than dollar basis. I suppose that's fair enough. Here's an article offering some explanations on why:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/10/06/wealthy-americans-are-giving-less-of-their-incomes-to-charity-while-poor-are-donating-more/
I would also add that that people in higher income brackets pay a far higher tax burden, which in turn provides much of the government benefits and services enjoyed disproportionately by those who have lower income.
So, you responded to my evidence from a recent peer-reviewed academic paper written by authors from respected educational institutions by citing a study of education and crime rates that appear to correlate in 1847 (?) in a sample of unnamed counties in the UK.
Wow. It took you a few days and had to reach deep in the bag to come up with that one. I can understand why you want to run fast from engaging in this argument.
I'll leave you to wallow in your lazy, faux intellectualism.
The paper you posted and my shared link doesn't address the same topic; so no, one is not the response to the other.
Right, I didn't reply for a few days. I had other things to do over a weekend, like spending time with family and doing productive things rather engage an anonymous person on an internet forum who is so consumed with his ideology that he can regurgitate links, memes and info graphics in abundance on demand. I literally did a quick Google search on "income vs crime rate" and posted one of the first links. Here's the results of another Google search with data sourced from the US Census:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crime_Rate_vs_Income_Change_Black_1st_Quintile_72-90_Correlation.png
Anonymous
10/14/2014 22:26
Subject: What is your definition of Middle class, upper middle class and lower middle class
To the pp who said "wealth isn't a zero sum game" -- have you considered the fact that there isn't an endless supply of money in the world and income disparity is a growing issue in this country?
We could theoretically create policies that would allow 10% of the US population to hoard 90% of the money, but we don't because keeping money moving through the economy is a good thing. Wealth is a limited commodity and by its very nature, the more we allow x % of the population to accumulate, the less wealth there is for y% of the population. Not to mention, those with less money tend to pump a greater percent of their income back into the economy.
We could theoretically create policies that would allow 10% of the US population to hoard 90% of the money, but we don't because keeping money moving through the economy is a good thing. Wealth is a limited commodity and by its very nature, the more we allow x % of the population to accumulate, the less wealth there is for y% of the population. Not to mention, those with less money tend to pump a greater percent of their income back into the economy.
Anonymous
10/14/2014 19:07
Subject: Re:What is your definition of Middle class, upper middle class and lower middle class
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:On the priorities of plutocrats:
Why do I have to pay a water bill
I suppose if you have no money you are not entitled to water, or by extension life. Sigh, why do I even bother?
Anonymous
10/14/2014 19:05
Subject: Re:What is your definition of Middle class, upper middle class and lower middle class
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:PP above. I'll offer my evidence first:
How Wealth Reduces Compassion
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
I'm the PP you were replying to. This thread just took a turn for the crazy. Unfortunately I am not as well researched as those who are consumed by their irrational views of the world. You asked for evidence, and then proceed to offer your own, which amounts to narrowly focused analysis based on cherry picked data segments. We are talking about the general, not the few.
How do we know that there's a positive correlation between money/education and integrity/ethics? Aside from rational logical deduction, the broad data demonstrates this by showing that higher income and better education leads to less crime. There are numerous analysis showing this data, here's just one after a quick Google search:
http://web.utk.edu/~leon/stat571/Nightingale/Florence%20Nightingale%20Museum%20Web%20Site_files/small.htm
With regards to charity, most of the studies out there address the issue by performing the analysis on a percent-of-income basis, rather than dollar basis. I suppose that's fair enough. Here's an article offering some explanations on why:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/10/06/wealthy-americans-are-giving-less-of-their-incomes-to-charity-while-poor-are-donating-more/
I would also add that that people in higher income brackets pay a far higher tax burden, which in turn provides much of the government benefits and services enjoyed disproportionately by those who have lower income.
So, you responded to my evidence from a recent peer-reviewed academic paper written by authors from respected educational institutions by citing a study of education and crime rates that appear to correlate in 1847 (?) in a sample of unnamed counties in the UK.
Wow. It took you a few days and had to reach deep in the bag to come up with that one. I can understand why you want to run fast from engaging in this argument.
I'll leave you to wallow in your lazy, faux intellectualism.
Anonymous
10/14/2014 11:15
Subject: Re:What is your definition of Middle class, upper middle class and lower middle class
Anonymous wrote:On the priorities of plutocrats:
Why do I have to pay a water bill
Anonymous
10/14/2014 11:15
Subject: Re:What is your definition of Middle class, upper middle class and lower middle class
Anonymous wrote:On the priorities of plutocrats:
Why do I have to pay a water bill
Anonymous
10/14/2014 10:00
Subject: Re:What is your definition of Middle class, upper middle class and lower middle class
Anonymous wrote:On the often absurd logic of capitalism:
PP here again. I hope this was not posted by the poster I am discussing with. But if so, then this will be my last reply to this thread. This exemplifies an astoundingly poor understanding of the capitalist economic system.
Wealth isn't a zero sum game. One guy making more money doesn't take it away from someone else. The phrase "making money" is very much under appreciated because it perfectly describes what happens: you make, as in create money, where there was none before. Through your ingenuity, labor and risk taking, you create and add to the wealth of the world. This natural act of wealth creation doesn't impoverish anyone.
Anonymous
10/14/2014 09:52
Subject: Re:What is your definition of Middle class, upper middle class and lower middle class
Anonymous wrote:PP above. I'll offer my evidence first:
How Wealth Reduces Compassion
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
I'm the PP you were replying to. This thread just took a turn for the crazy. Unfortunately I am not as well researched as those who are consumed by their irrational views of the world. You asked for evidence, and then proceed to offer your own, which amounts to narrowly focused analysis based on cherry picked data segments. We are talking about the general, not the few.
How do we know that there's a positive correlation between money/education and integrity/ethics? Aside from rational logical deduction, the broad data demonstrates this by showing that higher income and better education leads to less crime. There are numerous analysis showing this data, here's just one after a quick Google search:
http://web.utk.edu/~leon/stat571/Nightingale/Florence%20Nightingale%20Museum%20Web%20Site_files/small.htm
With regards to charity, most of the studies out there address the issue by performing the analysis on a percent-of-income basis, rather than dollar basis. I suppose that's fair enough. Here's an article offering some explanations on why:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/10/06/wealthy-americans-are-giving-less-of-their-incomes-to-charity-while-poor-are-donating-more/
I would also add that that people in higher income brackets pay a far higher tax burden, which in turn provides much of the government benefits and services enjoyed disproportionately by those who have lower income.