You know, I really didn't want to shut this down, up to page 5 it really was alot of fun for me.
I think I'll start a new thread talking about economic fallacies, where numbers are encouraged.
S_W, sorry about spoiling your fun with the tools "very wealthy people invent to inspire visceral passions amongst poorer people".
I'm an INTJ, that means the visceral passions don't seem to have the same effect on me. Instead, I find I'm passionate about efficiency. I'm just broken that way.
Can't Save? Here's Why
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
While I try to avoid arguments when I can no longer gain knowledge or insight from them, my biggest pet peeve is undeserved smugness (deserved smugness, OTOH, is awesome).
Riggerjack, perhaps you should take a look at this: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jan/wk2/art03.htm
http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... Income.gif
You'll see that women participation in the workforce grew at its fastest rate when income growth was also at its fastest growth rate.
Now while you might consider yourself an INTJ, I find the "T" a bit lacking.
Riggerjack, perhaps you should take a look at this: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jan/wk2/art03.htm
http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... Income.gif
You'll see that women participation in the workforce grew at its fastest rate when income growth was also at its fastest growth rate.
Now while you might consider yourself an INTJ, I find the "T" a bit lacking.
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
Ok, that would be expected. Income growth attracts more to the labor force. I agree whole-heartedly with that.
One chart shows a solid upward growth in incomes, the other that as more women go to work, they form a higher percentage of the workforce...
What's your point?
My argument was things are better, overall. That incomes may be barely holding in aggregate, but are categorically are solidly improving.
I know people, but no aggregates. If there's 150% more people doing 16% better, and that drags down the median, I still have to call that a net plus.
Now, if you have a way to change up the categories showing a different story, great. However, your charts seem to be strengthening my argument.
As to smugness, I can't argue that. I find that being right is very important to me. More important than winning an online debate. If you can show me I'm wrong, or have my facts wrong, I will be grateful, and will absolutely modify my views.
If, on the other hand, you are simply offended by my writing style, and belief that I AM right, well, there's not much I am willing to do about that. That, is the J part of INTJ. It's nothing to be proud of, simply part of who I am, that I have learned to live with.
One chart shows a solid upward growth in incomes, the other that as more women go to work, they form a higher percentage of the workforce...
What's your point?
My argument was things are better, overall. That incomes may be barely holding in aggregate, but are categorically are solidly improving.
I know people, but no aggregates. If there's 150% more people doing 16% better, and that drags down the median, I still have to call that a net plus.
Now, if you have a way to change up the categories showing a different story, great. However, your charts seem to be strengthening my argument.
As to smugness, I can't argue that. I find that being right is very important to me. More important than winning an online debate. If you can show me I'm wrong, or have my facts wrong, I will be grateful, and will absolutely modify my views.
If, on the other hand, you are simply offended by my writing style, and belief that I AM right, well, there's not much I am willing to do about that. That, is the J part of INTJ. It's nothing to be proud of, simply part of who I am, that I have learned to live with.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
My point was that you are completely wrong--and unjustifiable in your smugness. Again, I really don't think you're an INTJ, but there's no reason to get personal.
There are many ideas you're throwing around that are categorically wrong, but I've only focused on one, coming from your source. Your source said: "Each demographic group has progressed, but at the same time, there’s been a great influx of lower income groups — women and nonwhites — into the workforce. This creates the illusion that nobody’s progressing when in fact everybody’s progressing." This is simply not true. You've tried to prove this simply wrong point by pointing out "At the worst of the great recession, there were over 1.5 times as many women in the work force as in 1980." I then pointed out the fallacy of this argument by demonstrating that, at the time when incomes were rising, so too were women entering the workforce more.
The idea that an influx of lower income groups--women and nonwhites--into the workforce is creating the illusion of income stagnation is very, very easily disproven. It's such a ridiculous idea that it doesn't take much effort to disprove--5 seconds on Google uncovers the data: when women (and nonwhites, but you can get that data on your own) were entering the workforce at their fastest rate, incomes were also growing at their fastest rate. There is no correlation between women and nonwhites entering the workforce and income stagnation.
And with that, yet again, I'm done with this thread.
There are many ideas you're throwing around that are categorically wrong, but I've only focused on one, coming from your source. Your source said: "Each demographic group has progressed, but at the same time, there’s been a great influx of lower income groups — women and nonwhites — into the workforce. This creates the illusion that nobody’s progressing when in fact everybody’s progressing." This is simply not true. You've tried to prove this simply wrong point by pointing out "At the worst of the great recession, there were over 1.5 times as many women in the work force as in 1980." I then pointed out the fallacy of this argument by demonstrating that, at the time when incomes were rising, so too were women entering the workforce more.
The idea that an influx of lower income groups--women and nonwhites--into the workforce is creating the illusion of income stagnation is very, very easily disproven. It's such a ridiculous idea that it doesn't take much effort to disprove--5 seconds on Google uncovers the data: when women (and nonwhites, but you can get that data on your own) were entering the workforce at their fastest rate, incomes were also growing at their fastest rate. There is no correlation between women and nonwhites entering the workforce and income stagnation.
And with that, yet again, I'm done with this thread.
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
OK, S_W is done again.
Is there anyone still here who can make his point for him? I find that I'm confused.
I posited there's been no income stagnation. Then showed growth in income, and the demographic changes in the workforce that showed how in aggregate everyone did better, but the median didn't improve much.
Did I not make my case clear, or is there some other communication problem here?
Is there anyone still here who can make his point for him? I find that I'm confused.
I posited there's been no income stagnation. Then showed growth in income, and the demographic changes in the workforce that showed how in aggregate everyone did better, but the median didn't improve much.
Did I not make my case clear, or is there some other communication problem here?
-
RealPerson
- Posts: 875
- Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:33 pm
The quote about research being for support rather than illumination is still very much correct, especially after seeing this discussion. People see the world as essentially unfair and rigged against them, and those people want government rules to create "fairness" and more income equality. Those that live in a "land of opportunity" see government intervention as detrimental. No amount of discussion will change minds in that regards.
An especially uplifting and interesting speech was given by Dr. Ben Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast. It is 27 minutes well spent watching it. He directly addresses the issue of opportunity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA
An especially uplifting and interesting speech was given by Dr. Ben Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast. It is 27 minutes well spent watching it. He directly addresses the issue of opportunity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA
What bothers me in debates like this is when people start shutting others down. The whole point of an online forum is the exchange of ideas, hopefully leading to personal growth. Telling people they shouldn't discuss something, or they can only discuss it a certain way ("my point is THE point; those who disagree are wrong/stupid/mentally ill"), or people are only entitled to an opinion if they provide credentials or documentation, etc. is undemocratic.
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
I was raised liberal, and didn't start to change that until my late 20's. Part of the reason for that was that I was surrounded by like minded folks. I was never exposed to other ideas, except an exaggerated version of conservative thought to keep me pure. Think NPR's all things considered: 3 minutes of well outlined liberal case, with support, and a 15 second quote of a southern republican taken out of context.
I wish I hadn't wasted as much time as I did indulging my sense of righteous anger, and when I see it, I want to point this regret out. Unfortunately, I'm also a belligerent a$$hole. I am very comfortable disagreeing with people. I wasted too much of my life around people who agree, whether they really agree or not. I find I learn more from disagreement.
So I say bring it on! If there's some way I'm wrong, tell me. That is how I've developed my body of knowledge. That also gives me the confidence in that knowledge that S_W finds smug. This isn't me trying to shut anyone down, it's my invitation to come outside and play.
I wish I hadn't wasted as much time as I did indulging my sense of righteous anger, and when I see it, I want to point this regret out. Unfortunately, I'm also a belligerent a$$hole. I am very comfortable disagreeing with people. I wasted too much of my life around people who agree, whether they really agree or not. I find I learn more from disagreement.
So I say bring it on! If there's some way I'm wrong, tell me. That is how I've developed my body of knowledge. That also gives me the confidence in that knowledge that S_W finds smug. This isn't me trying to shut anyone down, it's my invitation to come outside and play.
Re: Can't Save? Here's Why
interesting posts on 2nd, 7th, 8th, 10th page.