Shortforbob

What would the USA look like today if the English had won?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not arguing against either of those very valid points, Kent - but, where is access to opportunity done better than here?    Asking that question doesn't imply that there aren't things we could do much better.  

Ches, the graph I quoted in the previous post addresses your point. Opportunities in the US may be great but it is much easier to get ahead in a bunch of other countries if you don't start with the proverbial silver spoon in your mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Ches, the graph I quoted in the previous post addresses your point. Opportunities in the US may be great but it is much easier to get ahead in a bunch of other countries if you don't start with the proverbial silver spoon in your mouth.

Man I'd really want to see the methodology before I start drawing conclusions from that graph.

In a correlation between father and son income, the son's income can go up or down. If this was my project, I'd think really hard before lumping those two things together as one measurement.

How are they comparing incomes over time? 

What about sons with no fathers?

What about incomes between young men in general today and young men in general 20 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

That isn't a question I can just answer off the top of my head, but I would love to here from others. Some of it really depends on what you call "opportunity". I know we probably lag a good chunk of the EU in the chances of going from lower to middle class, but if you want to be a billionaire the USA is probably as good a place as any as far as legal occupations go.

Comparisons to mono-cultures like Norway are a bit tricky. Norwegians in the USA tend to do pretty well too ;)

I think we need to get over this idea that the US is the home to all sorts of foreign people - for better or worse and that places like Norway are all blue-eyed, blonde skiers. Here are a. few stats for. foreign-born part of the population.

US.  14.3%

Norway 13.8% (pretty much the same)

Sweden 18.5%

NZ  25.1%

Canada 21.9%

Oz 33.3%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note on the USSR: One thing stuck out in reading "Midnight in Chernobyl" was how much the USSR was a meritocracy - until it wasn't. Many of the top physicists, generals, politicians, reactor designers, and so on came from very humble roots, as in outhouse and kerosene lights humble. If you were smart and willing to work, even a half-starved kid from a backwoods shed could go to the best schools and make it to the top of their field. There really wasn't any such thing as "My parents were too poor to send me to exploding crappy reactor building school" :rolleyes:

That all worked until it didn't. If you were Jewish you only got promoted so far. If you didn't join the party and kiss the right party ass you only got so far. Idiot ass-kissers could weasel their way past competent honest people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shubrook said:

Man I'd really want to see the methodology before I start drawing conclusions from that graph.

In a correlation between father and son income, the son's income can go up or down. If this was my project, I'd think really hard before lumping those two things together as one measurement.

How are they comparing incomes over time? 

What about sons with no fathers?

What about incomes between young men in general today and young men in general 20 years ago?

Then I suggest you find the paper and check out the methodology used. You can get back to us with your conclusions. In the absence of other data this is something we can start with. Much better than someone's anecdotal story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

That isn't a question I can just answer off the top of my head, but I would love to here from others. Some of it really depends on what you call "opportunity". I know we probably lag a good chunk of the EU in the chances of going from lower to middle class, but if you want to be a billionaire the USA is probably as good a place as any as far as legal occupations go.

Comparisons to mono-cultures like Norway are a bit tricky. Norwegians in the USA tend to do pretty well too ;)

I dunno - I'm acquainted w/a few 1st/2nd gen hispanic families that are bustin' their butts and doing pretty well for themselves because they're willing to take on jobs that lots of other folks don't seem to want to do, or to do for the $$ that these folks are willing to work for.   Look in the kitchens in most restaurants, and the upcoming chefs seem to include a large hispanic demographic.  I work w/more than a few IT folks who are Polish/eastern european descent who are climbing rapidly.   

All of these folks seem to be constantly improving their personal circumstances. 

I understand your point, and I'll probably get some pushback on this opinion, but, I think that the reasons that most folks who aren't improving their condition probably lie with those folks and the decisions they've made and the priorities they've adopted, rather than a systemic lack of access to opportunity.   I know for a fact that I'm guilty of that as well - I've taken on a LOT of student loan debt to help give my kids a better start than I had, and that debt indeed does impact my ability to save and invest.  I won't like it later - don't like it much now, as a matter of fact, but, I can't say my situation is a result of anything other than the decisions I made and priorities I chose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Ches, the graph I quoted in the previous post addresses your point. Opportunities in the US may be great but it is much easier to get ahead in a bunch of other countries if you don't start with the proverbial silver spoon in your mouth.

I'm not sure that I correctly understand the basis for that chart, and how those graph points demonstrate the bolded part of your comment.  Can ya help me better understand? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think we need to get over this idea that the US is the home to all sorts of foreign people - for better or worse and that places like Norway are all blue-eyed, blonde skiers. Here are a. few stats for. foreign-born part of the population.

US.  14.3%

Norway 13.8% (pretty much the same)

Sweden 18.5%

NZ  25.1%

Canada 21.9%

Oz 33.3%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population

I suspect that a lot of Norway's foreign born are a very recent phenomenon. Also note I said mono CULTURE, not MONO EYE COLOR.  Norwegians AFAIK are pretty universal in liking how their social democracy and oil income function. Does Norway have any significant population descended from slaves*? Do they have the equivalent of our Appalachian people? Do they have anything like Indian reservations?

* I mean slaves in Norway, I am sure they have some escaped slaves from Africa living there now. Last I checked slavery ended in Norway a very long time ago, around 1300 AD plus or minus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

A note on the USSR: One thing stuck out in reading "Midnight in Chernobyl" was how much the USSR was a meritocracy - until it wasn't. Many of the top physicists, generals, politicians, reactor designers, and so on came from very humble roots, as in outhouse and kerosene lights humble. If you were smart and willing to work, even a half-starved kid from a backwoods shed could go to the best schools and make it to the top of their field. There really wasn't any such thing as "My parents were too poor to send me to exploding crappy reactor building school" :rolleyes:

That all worked until it didn't. If you were Jewish you only got promoted so far. If you didn't join the party and kiss the right party ass you only got so far. Idiot ass-kissers could weasel their way past competent honest people.

it is interesting to look at the Chinese university entrance exams that every kid writes and are used for admission to university. The higher score gets you into a better university. Both of my in-laws were children of peasant families in the south of the country many years ago.. They did well on the gaokao and got into university which was paid for by the government. both ended up being university profs. The system continues today and kids and their families spend years prepping. Better than your daughters getting in because they pretend to be athletes - and why should athletes get in anyway?

You can try some questions here.

https://www.businessinsider.com/sample-questions-from-chinas-gaokao-one-of-worlds-toughest-tests-2018-6

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm not sure that I correctly understand the basis for that chart, and how those graph points demonstrate the bolded part of your comment.  Can ya help me better understand? 

The lower the number the less correlation of a child's income the income of their parents. I think Denmark is at the bottom, which means your income is the least likely to be related to your parents. I.E. being born poor is less likely to make you poor than anyplace else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

it is interesting to look at the Chinese university entrance exams that every kid writes and are used for admission to university. The higher score gets you into a better university. Both of my in-laws were children of peasant families in the south of the country many years ago.. They did well on the gaokao and got into university which was paid for by the government. both ended up being university profs. The system continues today and kids and their families spend years prepping. Better than your daughters getting in because they pretend to be athletes - and why should athletes get in anyway?

Legacy admission is the most toxic preference in US higher education, it used to stretch back to grandparents at some schools, and it's mostly about building a dedicated fund raising base for your university. Similarly athletes have been found to be very school loyal and will donate $ in the future, fraternitys/sororitys too, it's all about building a donor pool now. The toxic effects of the fund-raise all the time culture stretch up to the richest schools in the US, just look at Friday's Farrow story about the MIT Media Lab hustling for pedophile money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm not sure that I correctly understand the basis for that chart, and how those graph points demonstrate the bolded part of your comment.  Can ya help me better understand? 

I think basically what they did was look at the socio-economic status of parents and their kids. If the parents' status completely predicted the kids status the correlation coefficient would be 1.0. If there was no correlation to be seen then the coefficient would be 0. So a lower number indicates that the parents; status had less impact on how the kids did than a higher number. Shubrook is going to check out the methodology used in the study to make sure it is valid. Basically what the table suggests is that, on balance, it is easier for a poorer kid to get richer in countries like Denmark and Canada than in the US , UK or Chile. It works in reverse as well. If you come from a rich family it is easier to stay rich (hello various Trumps).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The lower the number the less correlation of a child's income the income of their parents. I think Denmark is at the bottom, which means your income is the least likely to be related to your parents. I.E. being born poor is less likely to make you poor than anyplace else.

Thanks Kent - I appreciate the explanation. 

So would it be appropriate to consider that the chart indicates the inverse as well - that just because you're born well off, that you're less likely to stay well off?   

I suppose that I'd want to understand WHY that is before I accept that it indicates a lack of access to opportunity here, or greater access to opportunity someplace else.  Beyond that, I'd like to just understand why the variances exist - in my unsophisticated grasp of economics, I think that understanding those factors would give us a good idea about where to focus to improve.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I suppose that I'd want to understand WHY that is before I accept that it indicates a lack of access to opportunity here, or greater access to opportunity someplace else.  Beyond that, I'd like to just understand why the variances exist - in my unsophisticated grasp of economics, I think that understanding those factors would give us a good idea about where to focus to improve.  

One guess would be that countries like Denmark have freer, less regulated business environments and are more capitalist. As opposed to the US which is socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ That could be, Jiblets - I think it's probably a pretty complex combination of factors and circumstances that would take someone smarter than I am to understand, and then distill into an explanation that's understandable by a dummy like me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Then I suggest you find the paper and check out the methodology used. You can get back to us with your conclusions. In the absence of other data this is something we can start with. Much better than someone's anecdotal story.

Ahh, here's the paper.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp7520.pdf

Haven't read the whole thing. Let's be real, I probably won't. In any Case they go into their methodolgy on page 3.

Quote

Income inequality is measured as the Gini coefficient, using disposable household income for about 1985 as provided by the OECD. Intergenerational economic mobility is measured as the elasticity between paternal earnings and a son’s adult earnings, using data on a cohort of children born, roughly speaking, during the early to mid 1960s and measuring their adult outcomes in the mid to late 1990s. The estimates of the intergenerational earnings elasticity are derived from published studies, adjusted for methodological comparability in a way that I describe in the appendix to Corak (2006), updated with a more recent literature review reported in Corak (2013), where I also offer estimates for a total of 22 countries. I only use estimates derived from data that are nationally representative of the population and which are rich enough to make comparisons across generations within the same family. In addition, I only use studies that correct for the type of measurement errors described by Atkinson, Maynard, and Trinder (1983), Solon (1992), and Zimmerman (1992), which means deriving permanent earnings by either averaging annual data over several years or by using instrumental variables.

specifically, the elasticity between paternal earnings and a son’s adult earnings, using data on a cohort of children born, roughly speaking, during the early to mid 1960s and measuring adult outcomes in the mid to late 1990s.

It uses the GINI coeficcient.

I don't think it actually connects father-to-father at all, if I'm reading this right. It's just cohort to cohort. I suppose you probably couldn't do father-to-father on a 90's computer.

Looks like its a standard linear regression model.

It also compares 60's to 90's. The data is coming up on 30 years old.

It looks like a lot of work went into this study, but it also looks like the media has taken it and run with it:

Quote

All this said, if one number is to summarize the degree to which inequality is transmitted across the generations, just as sometimes one number, like a Gini coefficient, is used to summarize the degree of inequality at a point in time, then the intergenerational elasticity is an appropriate statistic to use. But this does not mean that it measures “equality of opportunity” or the even-more-elusive “American Dream.” Roemer (2004, 2012) and Jencks and Tach (2006), among others, are clear on this point, emphasizing that in no sense is an intergenerational elasticity of zero an optimum and noting that making an inference about equality of opportunity from the degree of intergenerational earnings mobility requires us to draw a line between differences in circumstances—for which individuals should in some sense be compensated—and personal choices, for which they should be responsible.

you know this is quite a good read. Maybe I will read it all...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scandinavian countries are kind of smooshed together  - less poor people and less rich people. So for 1 thing you don't have as far to climb or fall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Scandinavian countries are kind of smooshed together  - less poor people and less rich people. So for 1 thing you don't have as far to climb or fall.

 

That is a good way to increase correlation between parents and offspring.   The US as a strong correlation without this relative social equality.  

In my view there is no perfect country and many things we (US) do well.   Meritocracy isn’t one of them,   If I was allowed to set policy I would equalize primary education irregardless of income, realizing the half percent will never force their kids to step into a public school,  but the top 10% and bottom 10% both can get a similar education.   That will force improvement over our current solution of moving to a rich suburb.    A Senator Sanders style free college is obviously extremely expensive if not rationed by merit like other countries do.  Therefore I would start with reform of student loans.   The poor college student is a bygone meme, most live rich on debt.   Dorms have semiprivate or private bathrooms and food courts instead of dorm food.    State universities concentrate on the business of athletics and research more then education.    I’m not sure how to solve this, but it needs a solution.   I realize rich kids will always leapfrog the rest with private schools, but we can improve the fairness of our education for most.

Medical expense and being one health issue away from bankruptcy is a huge downward draw for many working Americans.    The uninsured are at high risk, but also the self insured and even many with corporate insurance go bankrupt if they are unlucky.   I feel this is a common cause of people doing worse then their parents.   Only the top percent needn’t worry about a half million in denied bills.   Most family finances would be adversely affected by a common event like a $20,000 bill insurance walks away from.  So this is a common negative explanation for the imperfect correlation that currently occurs.   The problem is worse then it appears.   One of my links shows more downward mobility among lower income percentiles, I believe partially for this reason.   

I hate socialization of corporations and the capitalism of small business.    Large distribution centers get tax breaks to kill retail.   Due to lobbying power, large corporations write regulations to stifle small competition and and allow themselves every advantage.   Does anybody believe they could have built an airplane and the FAA would let them do their own safety evaluations like Boeing was doing until literally the entire world objected and grounded the plane?    Government agencies make me spend many hours on hold, large corporations have a direct line.   Ohio forces me to fill out business surveys that are compiled and evaluated by large businesses looking for unexploited niches.    They can identify and exploit my profit centers through mandatory reporting.   Data is power.  The very large own the field, the ball, and make me pay to use their cracked bat.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

I don't think this is relevant chart given the where the countries listed are in their national development. The US was where say Slovenia is now in the 50's. 

The US had 700,000 new (not old money) millionaires in 2017. How many did Slovenia have? 

 image.png.5095ed097059088cdab7311f6571da7f.png

Exactly,   We should be lined up next to Canada, not Slovenia.   The top 20% do good, the top 1% get richer and make rich kids.   The bottom 60% struggle in America.    Family fortunes no longer decrease as they ar divided by generations,    They grow so quickly there is enough for each of the kids to start with what their dad inherited, adjusted for inflation.   The top 2000 worldwide saw their wealth go by by 12% in a year.  https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/22/18192774/oxfam-inequality-report-2019-davos-wealth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lark said:

 Does anybody believe they could have built an airplane and the FAA would let them do their own safety evaluations like Boeing was doing until literally the entire world objected and grounded the plane?   

You might maybe sort of get away with that if you know the right DER and could afford him. (Designated Engineering Representative) You are still only halfway there, as a bit player you don't have any leverage over DER, he is not going to risk his professional reputation to let you pencil-whip some bullshit autopilot trick to make your new plane sort of resemble your old one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lark said:

Exactly,   We should be lined up next to Canada, not Slovenia.   The top 20% do good, the top 1% get richer and make rich kids.   The bottom 60% struggle in America.    Family fortunes no longer decrease as they ar divided by generations,    They grow so quickly there is enough for each of the kids to start with what their dad inherited, adjusted for inflation.   The top 2000 worldwide saw their wealth go by by 12% in a year.  https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/22/18192774/oxfam-inequality-report-2019-davos-wealth

Hmm. I don't see how that chart supports your response... The chart shows new money not get rich off dad money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:

Hmm. I don't see how that chart supports your response... The chart shows new money not get rich off dad money. 

It shows both,    Baby silver spoon and his sister come of age with their million dollar Trump style starter packages.  I forgot to add in near retirement portfolios of the boomers as they leave the workforce, hopefully the richest point of their lives.    10,000 turn 65 each day.   We are also near the top of the recovery, assuming he next recession hits in 20 if not this fall.   IRA’s should be high.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/032216/are-we-baby-boomer-retirement-crisis.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 10:24 AM, Shortforbob said:

What would the USA look like today if you'd lost the war of independence?

Well for one thing, air travel would be less developed if the American Revolutionaries never took over the airports from the British in the Boston-Logan campaign of 1778. 

Also:

  • Our women would have really fat ankles.
  • Dentistry would be never have been discovered
  • High cuisine would consist of boiled potatoes, fried beans and mushy peas.
  • There would be no America's Cup
  • The American sports past-time would be cricket
  • The American colonials would dominate AUS and NZ in soccer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

One guess would be that countries like Denmark have freer, less regulated business environments and are more capitalist. As opposed to the US which is socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

So you're in favor of deregulation of US business?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shubrook said:

Ahh, here's the paper.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp7520.pdf

Haven't read the whole thing. Let's be real, I probably won't. In any Case they go into their methodolgy on page 3.

It uses the GINI coeficcient.

I don't think it actually connects father-to-father at all, if I'm reading this right. It's just cohort to cohort. I suppose you probably couldn't do father-to-father on a 90's computer.

Looks like its a standard linear regression model.

It also compares 60's to 90's. The data is coming up on 30 years old.

It looks like a lot of work went into this study, but it also looks like the media has taken it and run with it:

you know this is quite a good read. Maybe I will read it all...

The paper is from 2013. I gave it a quick read and it seems pretty well-reasoned. The GINI Index is just one of many statistical measures used. It is not intended to predict what might happen with any particular person. It looks at populations and most commonly breaks the total population into deciles. The conclusion is clear though. Intra-generational economic mobility is much higher in Scandinavia and Canada than in the US and UK. The author makes reference to other studies that reached similar conclusions. All nations cling to their national myths. For the US, one of them is that everyone has the same chance to rise to the top. The fact suggest otherwise. Making it more possible requires the acceptance of what the current situation is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks Kent - I appreciate the explanation. 

So would it be appropriate to consider that the chart indicates the inverse as well - that just because you're born well off, that you're less likely to stay well off?   

I suppose that I'd want to understand WHY that is before I accept that it indicates a lack of access to opportunity here, or greater access to opportunity someplace else.  Beyond that, I'd like to just understand why the variances exist - in my unsophisticated grasp of economics, I think that understanding those factors would give us a good idea about where to focus to improve.  

Quite thew opposite. If you are born wealthy you are much more likely to be wealthy. The inelasticity that the author refers to works in both direction. In Denmark you are more likely to move down or up. I sometimes wonder what sort of job Trump would have now if he had been born into a working class family instead of a rich one. He is just not particularly capable, shows poor judgement and is lazy, not a good combination for getting ahead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

I came in 84' 

Why was I so poor? Orphaned at 8yrs old and raised as a ward of the state will have a chilling effect on one net worth... 

As to "would I be poor in Oz". Don't know, I'm an ambitious person and It's a hypothetical question. But if you grew up in 1970's 1980's Australia and didn't have the "old school tie" your chances of breaking through in our culture was pretty low. Not to mention because of my ambition the "tall poppy syndrome" was ever present. When I came to the US all of that old school oppression was gone. I went from being mocked for my ambition to being praised for it. What a huge difference that made to my outcome in life. 

What nonsense is this? Growing up in the 70's and 80's in Australia? the first time we had completely free tertiary education. Though there was a recession in the late 70's, I was NEVER out of work ( I matriculated in 77 from a bog standard public high school) Wages where high for those willing to do shift work one could sit the public service exam..open to all with an HSC pass. My parents were a house painter and a shop assistant.House prices were affordable and what you bought in 1982 was worth 5x the purchase price  10 years later. 

Sure there were economic dips but in 1984 we were in boom times, we'd just elected the most diverse parliament in Australian history. 

No one ever asked me what school I went to. Looks like you are one of those that hung their background around their neck like the proverbial albatross.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

and with Canada's cost of getting a degree pretty similar to Oz, and your "socialised" health care..that's two of the big factors in a countries development covered. It's ALL about health and education.

If The USA had lost the war, it's likely they would have eventually followed ALL other British dominated erstwhile colonies. I'll posit that If thery'd lost, they'd be a lot like Canada, Australia and gawd help us..NZ :D

Being a hypothetical, there's no hard evidence for this but given the character of the other 3 is remarkable similar, why not?

The character of the colonists? I don't see they were much different from them, take away their puritans and our convicts, most were simply entrepreneurial types with the guts and hardyness to survive a wilderness.No difference except the rule of law.

 

Getting here was expensive, one either had to be of means or had to sign themselves over to indentured servitude, and there weren't many convicts trusted well enough to get that. 

We did get the criminals who had managed to elude the law though...at least so far. The records indicate a lot of people changed their names when they came here. Usually by changing just a few letters...like changing, say,  "Drumpf" to "Trump".     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So you're in favor of deregulation of US business?  

And a social net? Yes. You might find, if you left your comforting world of cliches (note: the English have better teeth than yanks now, and better food) there to be lots of support for this position amongst the youth. What they aren't for is socialism for the rich and that, that little Jeffreaux, is very much the core belief of your "tongue the asshole of a Rich guy or you are a communist" Republican party.

Of course "deregulation" doesn't mean what Republican assholes in the US usually think it means i.e. it's not "find a way to fuck someone over harder so I can make a little more many now".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

What nonsense is this? Growing up in the 70's and 80's in Australia? the first time we had completely free tertiary education. Though there was a recession in the late 70's, I was NEVER out of work ( I matriculated in 77 from a bog standard public high school) Wages where high for those willing to do shift work one could sit the public service exam..open to all with an HSC pass. My parents were a house painter and a shop assistant.House prices were affordable and what you bought in 1982 was worth 5x the purchase price  10 years later. 

Sure there were economic dips but in 1984 we were in boom times, we'd just elected the most diverse parliament in Australian history. 

No one ever asked me what school I went to. Looks like you are one of those that hung their background around their neck like the proverbial albatross.

I'm glad your life in Oz as a child was rewarding. My life in the US has also been. No Albatrosses required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And a social net? Yes. You might find, if you left your comforting world of cliches (note: the English have better teeth than yanks now, and better food) there to be lots of support for this position amongst the youth. What they aren't for is socialism for the rich and that, that little Jeffreaux, is very much the core belief of your "tongue the asshole of a Rich guy or you are a communist" Republican party.

Of course "deregulation" doesn't mean what Republican assholes in the US usually think it means i.e. it's not "find a way to fuck someone over harder so I can make a little more many now".

^ This.

I do not think a company should be dealing with employees medical care. My work doesn't insure boats, cars, airplanes, houses, or hot tubs, but they do insure our health. WhyTF is that their job?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark K said:

Getting here was expensive, one either had to be of means or had to sign themselves over to indentured servitude, and there weren't many convicts trusted well enough to get that. 

We did get the criminals who had managed to elude the law though...at least so far. The records indicate a lot of people changed their names when they came here. Usually by changing just a few letters...like changing, say,  "Drumpf" to "Trump".     

Australia had assisted passage even as early as 1860. Husband's family came from Ireland with 7 sones and two daughters and a new young wife!!

Got three sheep run leases for peanuts.

I suspect he left the old one at home:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I do not think a company should be dealing with employees medical care. My work doesn't insure boats, cars, airplanes, houses, or hot tubs, but they do insure our health. WhyTF is that their job?

I've been saying that exact thing for years here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I do not think a company should be dealing with employees medical care. My work doesn't insure boats, cars, airplanes, houses, or hot tubs, but they do insure our health. WhyTF is that their job?

The only reason was money and fear of calling a tax a tax.

One of the main reasons I believe in Medicare for all is I can't see any other way to finally breaking that cycle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

^ This.

I do not think a company should be dealing with employees medical care. My work doesn't insure boats, cars, airplanes, houses, or hot tubs, but they do insure our health. WhyTF is that their job?

It's not their job..it's their way of attracting employees, they can get a much better deal on your insurance, than you getting a single (or family) from an insurance company. So them paying your insurance is cheaper to them, than paying you more money and you getting the insurance yourself..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Q said:

It's not their job..it's their way of attracting employees, they can get a much better deal on your insurance, than you getting a single (or family) from an insurance company. So them paying your insurance is cheaper to them, than paying you more money and you getting the insurance yourself..

tumblr_inline_mmdyr113s81qz4rgp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 12:40 AM, Movable Ballast said:

I came in 84' 

Why was I so poor? Orphaned at 8yrs old and raised as a ward of the state will have a chilling effect on one net worth... 

As to "would I be poor in Oz". Don't know, I'm an ambitious person and It's a hypothetical question. But if you grew up in 1970's 1980's Australia and didn't have the "old school tie" your chances of breaking through in our culture was pretty low.

Bullshit. I grew up in what was then the far western suburbs of Sydney, left high school in 1970. My father was a self-employed fitter-welder and my mother a seamstress before being a full-time mother to 4 kids. No 'old school tie' there.

Despite that 3 out of the 4 kids went on to university and gained multiple degrees in science, engineering, IT and psychology.

It was entirely possible if you had the motivation *and* lived in a capital city. Growing up in some shit-hole like Broken Hill, Mt Isa or Adelaide, maybe not.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now