Originally posted by UltimateAnomaly
It does help that they're all Vikings and if anyone complains they'll go on a bloodlust rampage through Europe which no one really wants.
Vikings do everything right.
Originally posted by psmith81992
It does help having less than 15 million..
Actually a bit part of their success includes one of the smallest gender gaps and gaps between classes in the developed world, along with a great education which fuels a good economy.
My personal measuring stick for a countries' standard of living would be the state of the lowest class compared to the high class, in regards to access to basic needs to live comfortably, I.E. education, health care, housing, etc.
I don't know enough about Norway to make a judgement in that sense, but I would rate America's to be pretty low.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
My personal measuring stick for a countries' standard of living would be the state of the lowest class compared to the high class.I don't enough about Norway to make a judgement in that sense, but I would rate America's to be pretty low.
👆
Lol @ middle class being meager. Dave was upset that his silver spoon didn't come with a diamond-studded bib.
I'm actually writing a paper for my very conservative professor about Income Inequality right now. Norway has like the 1st or 2nd best 90-10 ratio in the world. (That is, the % of income taken by the top 10% versus the bottom 10% is the least outrageous in Norway.)
And as it turns out, our tax system does an okay job of redistributing wealth to equalize our income distribution:
In 2010: Federal taxes caused the distribution of after-tax income in 2010 to be slightly more even among quintiles than was the distribution of before-tax income. Households in the bottom four quintiles received shares of after-tax income that were about 1 percentage point greater than their shares of before-tax income. For example, households in the bottom quintile received 5.1 percent of before-tax income and 6.2 percent of after-tax income, and those in the middle quintile received 14.2 percent of before-tax income and 15.4 percent of after-tax income. In contrast, households in the highest quintile received 51.9 percent of before-tax income and 48.1 percent of after-tax income.
Originally posted by psmith81992
My criteria for standard of living is where can I make the most $$$, and what can that $$$ buy me.
Why do you think having a high maximum level of potential for wealth is more beneficial to a society than having a higher average of wealth among its citizens?
Or, to word it differently, why do you think the relative minority of a country having enough money to own a 12 bedroom house and 4 sports cars is more desirable in a society than the majority of a country having enough money to own a 3 bedroom house and one car?
Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, my silver spoon from my immigrant parents who came here with about $300. My criteria for standard of living is where can I make the most $$$, and what can that $$$ buy me.
There are no such things as poor Jews. You troll.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Why do you think having a high maximum level of potential for wealth is more beneficial to a society than having a higher average of wealth among its citizens?Or, to word it differently, why do you think the relative minority of a country having enough money to own a 12 bedroom house and 4 sports cars is more desirable in a society than the majority of a country having enough money to own a 3 bedroom house and one car?
👆
A majority of people should not struggle for "meager living" while a few live well beyond what they deserve and waste much.
Ethically, it's entirely wrong.
Originally posted by psmith81992
The question is, why do you feel that if there's an income inequality, it's somehow not justified on any level?
Lol ethically wrong? It's ethically wrong to say someone who earned his money is spending too much. Obviously not everyone earned their millions and not every poor person is a deadbeat but there's the law of averages. Also the Viking countries don't have to deal with a melting pot that exists here. You seem to be looking at 1 to 2 stats and no other context.
And there are no poor Jews because Jews work their asses off.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Lol ethically wrong? It's ethically wrong to say someone who earned his money is spending too much.
This is an example of "it is allowed; therefore, it is okay" type of ethical thinking that is selfish at worst, or vapid at best.
The idea that the system allows some people to profit, largely at the expense of others, is not a good system for a large group of people. It's not even a good small workplace group ethic.
This is doubly amusing since you are always whining about how entitled other people are and the "Me generation", but you get riled up when anyone makes ethical judgments on individual success. Because they're not double standards when they're your standards, obviously.
Obviously not everyone earned their millions and not every poor person is a deadbeat but there's the law of averages.
That's not the argument either. The point is that the gender gap and class gap, which in the case of the former is being shot down by Republicans because Democrats and the latter which is at its height since the Roaring 20's, do not benefit society as a whole. They benefit a small number of people with the rest fighting for the scraps.
Your arguments to defend it include:
- But I earned this money... (Ignoring that you earned it because society favored the simple buying and reselling of goods electronically and figuratively, which serves very little if any practical use in the real world; that you grew up in a society which paid for the police to keep you safe, the roads for you to drive on, the social programs you may have enjoyed, the school you may have attended, the subsidy on your power bills, and the representatives who maintained your way of life)
- We're bigger/more diverse.
- It ain't illegal.
- Why is inequality bad? (Derp. Natural inequality will always exist. Social inequality should be reasonably minimized so that groups in society don't get marginalized. That's why we have a democratic representative system with a Bill of Rights, and not a Russian federation here.)
Also the Viking countries don't have to deal with a melting pot that exists here. You seem to be looking at 1 to 2 stats and no other context.
While they are more homogeneous than the US (most countries are, really), this is overstated. People don't all have to be white or speak the same tongue to make a democratic socialist government work. Simply saying "They are less diverse" and then proving such doesn't prove your point any.
And there are no poor Jews because Jews work their asses off.
K sure.
This is an example of "it is allowed; therefore, it is okay" type of ethical thinking that is selfish at worst, or vapid at best.The idea that the system allows some people to profit, largely at the expense of others, is not a good system for a large group of people. It's not even a good small workplace group ethic.
This is doubly amusing since you are always whining about how entitled other people are and the "Me generation", but you get riled up when anyone makes ethical judgments on individual success. Because they're not double standards when they're your standards, obviously.
The only whining here is you with the whole "oh the filthy rich don't need A, B, and C." I don't see double standards here, just projection.
That's not the argument either. The point is that the gender gap and class gap, which in the case of the former is being shot down by Republicans because Democrats and the latter which is at its height since the Roaring 20's, do not benefit society as a whole. They benefit a small number of people with the rest fighting for the scraps.Your arguments to defend it include:
- But I earned this money... (Ignoring that you earned it because society favored the simple buying and reselling of goods electronically and figuratively, which serves very little if any practical use in the real world; that you grew up in a society which paid for the police to keep you safe, the roads for you to drive on, the social programs you may have enjoyed, the school you may have attended, the subsidy on your power bills, and the representatives who maintained your way of life)
- We're bigger/more diverse.
- It ain't illegal.
- Why is inequality bad? (Derp. Natural inequality will always exist. Social inequality should be reasonably minimized so that groups in society don't get marginalized. That's why we have a democratic representative system with a Bill of Rights, and not a Russian federation here.)
And your argument is.... "I think income inequality is not right. There is a huge income inequality, therefore it's not right". Nice tautology.
It's so nice how you fight for the poor man, then go ahead and ***** and moan about celebrities and athletes and why they get paid so much. Sounds like someone's bitter.
that you grew up in a society which paid for the police to keep you safe, the roads for you to drive on, the social programs you may have enjoyed, the school you may have attended, the subsidy on your power bills, and the representatives who maintained your way of life)
Here's you:
Income inequality is bad.
Here's me:
Why?
Here's you: Because the poor don't deserve to be poor and the wealthy don't need 10 bedrooms and an escalade.
But it's nice you try to hide all of that with fanciful logical fallacies I've allegedly committed. That's always helped you "cloud" the debate at hand.