They should keep it up. People need to see who Pete is so they can determine if that's who they want representing them. And he shouldn't be hiding his corporate benefactors (or anyone else for that matter). I always liked the idea politicians should be like Nascar drivers. Have all the logos over their suits.
Nah. This topic is like Republicans attacking earmarks. It's a fraud. Every politician has unsavory friends, talks with lobbyists, and one way or another takes big donations. Warren herself is using big-money donations left over from her 2018 Senate race to help finance her Presidential bid. We don't need more hypocrisy in our political campaigns, thanks much. We have enough of that already.
Cost your company $8 billion? Two planes of the same design causing 346 deaths that they're grounded by aviation authorities around the world? Or that people would actually check what type of plane it was if they were flying prior to grounding? Congratulations! You will receive this generous severance package! $32 million! Yes, hundreds of people died, but hey, you're a C suite man! You deserve it! Shit like this pisses me off to no end. $32,432,776 for losing $8 billion for his company.FYI I spent last night at a homeless shelter in Waterbury where many are employed but don’t make enough to afford rent so they’re spending Christmas at the shelter. WTF https://t.co/M1Xw07AUUu— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 24, 2019
500 people owns more than the GDP of the world’s third largest economy: The world's 500 wealthiest people gained $1.2 trillion this year, boosting their collective net worth 25% to $5.9 trillion https://t.co/UWCESCCYiB— Bloomberg (@business) December 27, 2019
I have a 401k and a portfolio of my own. I also own shares in my employer as well. But my employer provided me with these things. It also helped that my employer provided me with the tools needed as well. In fact, only about 1 in 6 do. And 80% of stocks owned in America are owned by ten percent of Americans.— Luke Zaleski (@ZaleskiLuke) January 9, 2020
Collectively the US is doing fine. But most of the gains are going to the top 10%, or 1%. And no doubt the 0.1% are making a kill. IMHO, if we raised the minimum wage to about $20/hr and we taxed investment (including SS and Medicare contributions) at the same level as wages, we would solve most of the issues that we usually complain about.
In America, mobility among the economic quintiles has always been the most fluid in the entire world. Meaning your rise from the bottom to top or vise versa is fast. Not sure how that factors into your income equity/disparity assumptions, but to me it signals a meritocracy.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...015/07/economic-mobility-in-the-united-states Key findings Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE, when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women. These estimates are at the high end of previous estimates and imply that the United States is very immobile. Children born far apart in the income distribution have very different economic outcomes. The expected family income of children raised at the 90th income percentile is about three times that of children raised at the 10th percentile. Parental income matters more for men’s earnings than for women’s. Although both men and women benefit from being born into higher-income families, men benefit much more, at least in terms of their own earnings. The persistence of advantage is especially large among those raised in the middle to upper reaches of the income distribution. The IGE among adults whose parents were between the 50th and 90th income percentiles is 0.68 for men and 0.63 for women. This means that approximately two-thirds of parental income differences within this region of the income distribution persist into the next generation. Also. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy In a more general sense, meritocracy can refer to any form of evaluation based on achievement. Like "utilitarian" and "pragmatic", the word "meritocratic" has also developed a broader connotation, and is sometimes used to refer to any government run by "a ruling or influential class of educated or able people".[5] This is in contrast to the original, condemnatory use of the term in 1958 by Michael Dunlop Young in his work "The Rise of the Meritocracy", who was satirizing the ostensibly merit-based Tripartite System of education practiced in the United Kingdom at the time; he claimed that, in the Tripartite System, "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications."[6] It's too bad we lost contact with the satirical origins of the term, because it's more accurate. Well, it has been updated thus by William Deresiewicz in his book Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite
Not anymore. https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparna...her-metric-of-economic-mobility/#170032656a7b
An article on the issues with solving inequality and how it means different things to different people. The new Yorker is a bit of an elitist magazine from one of [if not the most] richest cities in the world, so their is their bias. What is equality, is it natural, if so why do we have so many differences and what is the basis on why we want it, even if we agree on wanting it, how and what do we want? When do we get there? the article does talk about how this will change, so it is always a moving target. The war on poverty was won long ago, except that the war goals keep changing. Poor President Johnson, 2 unwinnable wars because we can't define what victory means. Individualism and why some people may vote "against" their economic interest. I think it is a pretty good article, I recommend it. And to get it out of the way [Obviously if you disagree with 'my opinion' you are a evil person that deserves no rights]. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/13/the-equality-conundrum?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Priorities: Total student loan debt: $1.69 trillionTotal cost of the 2017 Republican tax cuts for corporations and billionaires: $1.9 trillionAmerica has socialism for the rich, harsh capitalism for everyone else. https://t.co/iU0JHS8dpa— Robert Reich (@RBReich) January 17, 2020
The real question is why should we? Stupid government policies are responsible for a vast majority of student loan debt. Before we go off and reward people that chose to take on stupid debt, which also penalizes those that made better life choices, perhaps we should rethink some of our policies so we get better results?
We could indeed afford many many things if we didn’t keep fulfilling the obscene fiscal desires of corporations, the military and the top .1%. We already spend a billion in war, 3 trillion in healthcare and we put another trillion in the credit card to help poor billionaires. I bet that fixing most of the US problems probably take less than a modest trillion per year over a decade or so.
I wonder if all the stories about young people being crippled with college loan debt are having an effect on kids who are planning to go to college.
I hope it is. We have a tech center kids in our district can attend to get real job skills without needing to go to college. They can also get college credit while in HS so they can reduce the college credits needed to get a degree, thus reducing cost. There are multiple ways to not take out loans you cannot repay and still get a degree. They just aren’t as sexy as going straight to a private college and financing 4 years of life.
As the father of a high school junior, the answer is yes. (Well, she’s going to college, but is seriously considering knocking out the first two years at community college and then transferring.
Possibly, but I think people will start looking at community colleges to at least get the general education credits out of the way. My biggest regret going to college was not taking the gen eds at a community college then transferring them. The drastic drop in tuition when I registered was astounding when I started classes in 2018. The reasons one plans to go to college are numerous, but if you're me, it was somewhat encouraged. I'm the first in my immediate family to graduate college. Parents had some college but they never finished. Grandparents never went because they worked in factories, which paid well. It was my great-grandmother and my parents who pushed it on my siblings and I. My great-grandmother was a byproduct of the Great Depression. She had to leave high school at 15 to work, came to Detroit because the factory work was promising. She pushed college because as she told me, I'd have options. And lo and behold, I do. At 32, I have more opportunities than my parents do. The other thing she told me is, I have a degree, they can't take that away from me. The other reason people go, at least I think anyway, is a chance to escape their hometown. I grew up in a major city, loads of opportunities, especially if you're an engineer. But if you're growing up in SmallTown USA, college is an opportunity you won't get if you stay close to the area. More so if you're in a bad environment. As Lou Reed said, there's only one good thing about a small town: You hate it and you know you'll have to leave. The biggest issue I think, tends towards athletics and salaries of certain members of the faculty. In 2009, my small school's faculty went on strike due to a rather generous salary increase of $100k for the president. Meanwhile, the faculty is told they are on a salary freeze and may have to take cuts in medical benefits. On top of that, they raised tuition quite bit The best part about all of this? The school was running a rather dumb ad campaign about affordability. Meanwhile, the current president is making over $400k and getting some generous benefits. All of that money As for athletics, Ed Orgeron will receive a nice $1.7m bonus for his victory run. On top of his generous salary. Michigan State just had to pay a $4.5m fine for the way they handled Nassar, oh, and last I checked, MSU has paid out nearly $500 million in lawsuits, and they still have over 20 to go. And of course, let's not forget Penn State a decade ago, with Paterno. I like sports, but Jesus Christ some of these salaries are insane. Along with the lengths schools go to protect their athletics. ANd the numbers quoted for MSU, imagine if they took action when it was reported at first. I know sports bring money but Jesus, imagine if some of it went to academics.