They should have some sort of lottery or base the order on some intrinsic attribute of the states (most or least electoral votes goes first). Or they could have a UFC style event where each state fields a fighter and primaries are held based on how well each fighter does. Now THAT would be a political pay-per-view event worth watching!
‎"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you.
But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of the police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory…
Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea—God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
The problem with her rant is that she implies that the people making the money have never paid into the system. While this may be true for trust fund babies and new arrivals to the country it's not true for the rest of the people who worked there way up paying their dues along the way
Also the vast majority of career type employers offer tuition assistance to help you pay to better yourself as long as the course load is work related.
The problem with her rant is that she implies that the people making the money have never paid into the system.
That may be true, but they aren't the only people paying into the system. Everyone pays, everybody benefits. Benefiting from public goods and then refusing to maintain those public goods for others is selfish.
Also the vast majority of career type employers offer tuition assistance to help you pay to better yourself as long as the course load is work related.
Also the vast majority of career type employers offer tuition assistance to help you pay to better yourself as long as the course load is work related.
Also, you have the public education system to thank for the fact that your employees can read and write English.
Also the vast majority of career type employers offer tuition assistance to help you pay to better yourself as long as the course load is work related.
Not anymore. You're very lucky to find this.
And when you do find it, it's been slowly whittled away to the point where you'll still probably have to take out loans to pay for school since the benevolent omnicorp only pays a small amount.
Aren't the taxes paid by the factory owner a form of "paying forward"???
Maybe I just don't understand the point she is making?
Companies have stopped offering tuition assistance? That is fucking stupid! So companies are willing to pay big bucks to upgrade their machines but not their workers? Unless they employ unskilled labor this is a horribly bad idea on the part of the business owner. Skilled labor is just as much an asset as a piece of machinery, if not more so.
Companies have stopped offering tuition assistance? That is fucking stupid! So companies are willing to pay big bucks to upgrade their machines but not their workers? Unless they employ unskilled labor this is a horribly bad idea on the part of the business owner. Skilled labor is just as much an asset as a piece of machinery, if not more so.
Why train your employees when you can fire/lay them off and get cheaper less experienced ones with the degrees you want? Experienced people tend to like to get paid. You can't have that.
So companies are willing to pay big bucks to upgrade their machines but not their workers?
Well, Machines can't easily be poached by other companies, or quit all of a sudden. Not to mention that you could just find someone who has the skills you want and hire him while firing the person currently working the job. Welcome to capitalism.
The problem with her rant is that she implies that the people making the money have never paid into the system. While this may be true for trust fund babies and new arrivals to the country it's not true for the rest of the people who worked there way up paying their dues along the way
You mischaracterize the rich. Most of the mega-rich people got there either by inheriting an empire, or inheriting enough money to create an empire; very few people have actually
worked there way up paying their dues along the way
Name me one, and I'll show you the exception that proves the rule.
I'd like to see some data on upward mobility of Americans.
I would too, actually. I know only a couple of people who actually ended up making considerably more money than when they started working, and they're nowhere near the "rich" side of the coin due to incredibly high debts (student loans, etc.).
[M]ore and more evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much "stickier" than most Americans assume. Some researchers claim that social mobility is actually declining. A classic social survey in 1978 found that 23% of adult men who had been born in the bottom fifth of the population (as ranked by social and economic status) had made it into the top fifth. Earl Wysong of Indiana University and two colleagues recently decided to update the study. They compared the incomes of 2,749 father-and-son pairs from 1979 to 1998 and found that few sons had moved up the class ladder. Nearly 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979. The biggest increase in mobility had been at the top of society, with affluent sons moving upwards more often than their fathers had. They found that only 10% of the adult men born in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter.
The Economic Policy Institute also argues that social mobility has declined since the 1970s. In the 1990s 36% of those who started in the second-poorest 20% stayed put, compared with 28% in the 1970s and 32% in the 1980s. In the 1970s 12% of the population moved from the bottom fifth to either the fourth or the top fifth. In the 1980s and 1990s the figures shrank to below 11% for both decades. The figure for those who stayed in the top fifth increased slightly but steadily over the three decades, reinforcing the sense of diminished social mobility.
Bloomberg, Soros, Jobs, Gates, Wozniak, the Google guys, woman who wrote Harry Potter, Beatles..
You named one person on the list of the top 10 richest people in the world. Only three of those people worked their way up - the other 7 came from money.
I'm willing to bet there is a high correlation between people who play the lottery and Tea Party members who believe strongly in one's ability to be upwardly mobile. The common thread? Lack of understanding of statistics.
Bloomberg, Soros, Jobs, Gates, Wozniak, the Google guys, woman who wrote Harry Potter, Beatles..
So out of a sample size of 300 million that's about less than 0.00000001%
Also, the Beatles and J.K. Rowling are British...
are we talking about rich or Mega rich? Are we limiting the discussion to Americans? What exactly is the question because I know I mentioned the "born into wealth" exception.
Bloomberg, Soros, Jobs, Gates, Wozniak, the Google guys, woman who wrote Harry Potter, Beatles..
You named one person on the list of the top 10 richest people in the world. Only three of those people worked their way up - the other 7 came from money.
Bloomberg, Soros, Jobs, Gates, Wozniak, the Google guys, woman who wrote Harry Potter, Beatles..
You named one person on the list of the top 10 richest people in the world. Only three of those people worked their way up - the other 7 came from money.
I'll take those 3 in 10 odds!
If you're at the bottom, it's one in ten:
Nearly 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979. The biggest increase in mobility had been at the top of society, with affluent sons moving upwards more often than their fathers had. They found that only 10% of the adult men born in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter.
And that's just to be in the top 25%. It's a 1 in 7.5 million chance from there to be in the top ten (top quarter of 300 million = 75 million; top 10 of 75 million = 1 in 7.5 million).
To recap: the bottom of the bottom to the top of the top is a 1 in 75 million chance, or 0.0000013%.
I'm willing to bet there is a high correlation between people who play the lottery and Tea Party members who believe strongly in one's ability to be upwardly mobile. The common thread? Lack of understanding of statistics.
Well, if you look at the people who typically win big lottery jackpots, they tend to come from the boonies -- areas that tend to be Tea Party heavy.
That said, I admit I plunk down $5 on the lottery when the jackpot's over $100 million. Yeah, I know the stats say I won't get squat, but I figure I can afford $5 the handful of times a year that the jackpot's that big. It's the people that plunk down cash for every drawing that really don't know statistics.
Comments
Also the vast majority of career type employers offer tuition assistance to help you pay to better yourself as long as the course load is work related.
Her entire rant is deeply flawed.
Maybe I just don't understand the point she is making?
Companies have stopped offering tuition assistance? That is fucking stupid! So companies are willing to pay big bucks to upgrade their machines but not their workers? Unless they employ unskilled labor this is a horribly bad idea on the part of the business owner. Skilled labor is just as much an asset as a piece of machinery, if not more so.
If I let you folks in I'll find my cupboards bare,mud on the floors and the stench of low income depression on my coach!
Away with you people!
Or you might just steal my emerald glasses and happy drugs.
Also, the Beatles and J.K. Rowling are British...
To recap: the bottom of the bottom to the top of the top is a 1 in 75 million chance, or 0.0000013%.
That said, I admit I plunk down $5 on the lottery when the jackpot's over $100 million. Yeah, I know the stats say I won't get squat, but I figure I can afford $5 the handful of times a year that the jackpot's that big. It's the people that plunk down cash for every drawing that really don't know statistics.