- 4,002
- Null Island
You obviously use space lasers.
Looks like a job for the United States Space Force
You obviously use space lasers.
It may not actually be up to Space Force.Looks like a job for the United States Space Force
Oh, just normal things.
It may not actually be up to Space Force.
The conspiracy holds that the Rothschilds are responsible for this technology, and that purportedly makes sense because someone on the board of an energy company also has direct dealings with the Rothschilds' business interests. Seems pretty airtight.
The Biden administration may have to contract it out.
Easy there. This guy thinks Guam will " tip over" There is a lot of dummies in Government.Once again, I cannot use the space lasers because someone locked me out after forgetting the password.
Easy there. This guy thinks Guam will " tip over" There is a lot of dummies in Government.
The truth is that (with very few exceptions) if you are born rich you will remain rich in the US, and if you are born poor you will stay poor (and likely be poorer than your parents).
While absolute mobility declined across the income distribution, those born into the very bottom of the distribution are still highly likely to out-earn their parents. This is virtually a mechanical result: we would expect such a trend given the low point from which they started.
My phrasing was referring (not clearly, but that wasn't required in the original thread) to the very wealthiest.Borrowed this quote from a thread which is currently a train wreck.
70% of families lose their wealth by the 2nd generation, 90% lose it by the 3rd.
I think your phrasing for "born rich" is probably meant as shorthand for being born to wealthy parents, or having parents who become wealthy (even after your birth). I don't think you literally meant "born rich" which would require some sort of trust fund in your name, under your control, set up prior to your birth. That's hard to do without a social security number and birth certificate (not impossible, but not easy). A lot of wealthy people are actually wildly interested in controlling their wealth even after they pass it on. Many times inheritance is passed on late in life, perhaps as the "child" enters retirement, when their parents die. But if wealth is passed on earlier, it often comes with elaborate strings attached, in trust funds that can't be accessed until certain ages are reached, or under certain conditions. The strings attached is a way for parents to control their adult children, even from beyond the grave. So I don't know that the phrase "born rich" really applies literally.
Parents often naturally want to help their children, or ensure their children's safety and security. So it does make sense that ultra wealthy individuals ensure that their children remain wealthy, almost regardless of their actions. But the picture is often (based on the statistics) a downward slide through generations. Not just due to taxes, but due to a lack of the same mind, shaped by the same circumstances, that created the wealth in the first place. A child of a wealthy person simply doesn't, and practically can't, have the same outlook.
I suppose I'm a counterexample for your "if you're born poor" (which I'll assume means you're born to poor parents) "you will stay poor". So I'll try to remove myself from that statement.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...pecially-if-they-grew-up-in-the-middle-class/
View attachment 1016610
It's actually the wealthier your parents were the less likely you are to out earn them. For parents who were poor, the vast majority of their children out-earn them, even for kids born in 1980. Notably, that number seems to be going down, but there are a lot of ways to interpret that result.
*I put this discussion in the America thread since it seemed to be centered around American statistics and around a very America-centric topic. @Scaff if you think it belongs elsewhere we can move it.
My phrasing was referring (not clearly, but that wasn't required in the original thread) to the very wealthiest.
For everyone else it's been, based on the data I cited, a pattern over recent years of decreasing earning and in particular disposable income, across all groups (apart from again the very wealthiest).
Well obviously they lose it because it trickles down to the little guy, right? They surely aren't investing it into future projects, otherwise it would grow. They must be wasting it on rich-people things that do nothing to advance society. Just as new wealth can be created, existing wealth can be lost. That's different than simply transferring from one place to another. So those statistics seem to suggest that wealthy people, especially those born into wealth, are by far the most wasteful people in society and actively engage in the destruction of wealth rather than its creation or spread. They're not simply helping lift less fortunate people or helping to provide opportunity, they're actively working against that cause by destroying wealth that could be invested into society.
The research I was citing looked at absolute mobility (at the age of 30) and found the following:The decrease in disposable income (I'm substituting earnings here) is most pronounced in children of high earners (the opposite of what you just said), and reverses as parental earnings go down until you get to the point where it is highly likely that you will out-earn your parents (again the opposite of what you just said).
I think what you were getting at is some kind of median income level being less likely to out earn median income parents according to birth year, but it's not the same thing and if you look it applies nearly uniformly regardless of the earning potential of parents.
Well obviously they lose it because it trickles down to the little guy, right? They surely aren't investing it into future projects, otherwise it would grow. They must be wasting it on rich-people things that do nothing to advance society. Just as new wealth can be created, existing wealth can be lost. That's different than simply transferring from one place to another. So those statistics seem to suggest that wealthy people, especially those born into wealth, are by far the most wasteful people in society and actively engage in the destruction of wealth rather than its creation or spread. They're not simply helping lift less fortunate people or helping to provide opportunity, they're actively working against that cause by destroying wealth that could be invested into society.
The research I was citing looked at absolute mobility (at the age of 30) and found the following:
"We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size."
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/abs_mobility_summary.pdf
Easy there. This guy thinks Guam will " tip over" There is a lot of dummies in Government.
This is why I may have trouble once I finally get into a real professional work setting. I am not good at sugarcoating things or using "professional" language. If something is stupid, I say it's stupid. If somebody does something really dumb, the only way to make sure it never happens again is to make sure they know it was really dumb. Kids are one thing, they don't know any better, but I have very little tolerance for dumb adults."We don't anticipate that" is a very polite way of saying "that's 🤬 impossible, you 🤬 🤬."
Nice to see them "just saying no" to the war on drugs approach and I hope their crime rate and associated recidivism plummet as a result as I believe it has in other countries in which this approach has been tried.
continued
To help drive home the assertion that Republicans are unable to defend the substance of the legislation, when asked during hearings prior to the walkout what fraud the bill was designed to stop, its lead sponsor and real-life homunculus Briscoe Cain (R-128)'s response--"Okay, yeah...well, you know, we've got...w-we're trying to maybe stop the...w-were called ballot harvesting?" (sic)--didn't exactly inspire confidence. Then there's the not insubstantial matter of Republicans responding to high-profile corporate criticism and concern--legitimate criticism and concern--with queerly despotic threats of State action.
That they finally realized, "wow, we suck", and decided to do something about it?
So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt.This is why I may have trouble once I finally get into a real professional work setting. I am not good at sugarcoating things or using "professional" language. If something is stupid, I say it's stupid. If somebody does something really dumb, the only way to make sure it never happens again is to make sure they know it was really dumb. Kids are one thing, they don't know any better, but I have very little tolerance for dumb adults.
I applaud their public personas but I bet the language used behind office doors is hilarious.So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt.
Who gives a toss?How many of them legally owned the guns used?
In the case of the Downtown Austin shooting, there's still one perpetrator at large with one in custody. That's how early it is.Who gives a toss?
When the milk for my cereal has gone off, I don't go asking if the milk is 1% or full fat.
As misguided as I think that law is, it's not likely to be relevant to this incident.Happening in a state that's passing the new Constitutional Carry (carrying without a permit)....
It's not, but I've seen people argue for it that it means more people can carry guns now and that will deter a criminal.As misguided as I think that law is, it's not likely to be relevant to this incident.