3 ms·

I don't think you can blame immigrants as the deciding factor in crime. To quote Wikipedia: "In the US, studies have found lower crime rates among immigrants t

by badsock 11y ago

I don't think you can blame immigrants as the deciding factor in crime. To quote Wikipedia: "In the US, studies have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime). Furthermore, as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the US doesn't have a higher immigrant population than other places such as Sweden and Norway with much lower crime. And finally, immigrants are only 13% of the US population, so there would have to be a very large difference in criminality to move the needle in the overall population. Sorry for misinterpreting your comment about taxes, I read it too broadly. The reasoning behind estate taxes isn't theft, it was an effort by the US founding fathers to try and stop a hereditary aristocracy from taking hold in America, the way it had in Europe. Inherited wealth is directly opposed to the principles of meritocracy that they held high. And no, I am not in my 20s. And I too have years of business experience. And I've paid a lot in taxes. I'm genuinely arguing from the perspective of wanting a better society, not how much I can personally acquire. In terms of social mobility, the data directly contradicts you: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-wors... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Social_mobility_is_lower_in_more_unequal_countries.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Social_mobility_is_lower_... (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility) The US has a strong culture of valuing social mobility (pull yourself up by your own bootstraps), but it's not the case in practice. And finally, the reason that I believe in progressive taxation isn't based on what's more fair or not to the individual taxpayer. I agree that it's not a good feeling to watch your tax rate go up in response to success. But societies that don't engage in redistributive practices in that vein empirically end up in a worse spot across the board (economically and socially). I'd rather live in a better country than one that has a flat tax for ideological reasons. If I'm presented with an example of a society running well with a flat tax, I'd probably change my mind, as (all things being equal) it is much simpler and less unfair.

paulhauggis 11y ago
"I don't think you can blame immigrants as the deciding factor in crime" I'm not blaming immigrants. At this point, we have 2nd and 3rd generations of citizens that have not integrated into US culture and continue to keep their own. You don't see this in countries like Sweden, Denmark, or Finland for instance. When you do, things like this happens: http://unitedwithisrael.org/it-was-like-a-war-zone-muslims-riot-in-sweden/ http://unitedwithisrael.org/it-was-like-a-war-zone-muslims-r... I'm blaming people with broken cultures and views that don't integrate into their host country. Abandoning broken cultures is a good thing as it helps us progress as a society. We are so politically correct in the US, broken cultures are not only allowed to survive, but thrive. "I'm genuinely arguing from the perspective of wanting a better society," We have a great society now. Of course it's not perfect and could use some changes. However, limiting successful people and encouraging people to not work is not the answer. The ability to succeed has been what's made us great in the first place. We should be encouraging and rewarding success and making it easier for the average person to start and build a company, not harder. "in terms of social mobility, the data directly contradicts you:" You have: -High taxes (When added up, Sweden is close to 70%..which is on par with Denmark, Finland, Norway, and France) -The inability for the average person to start a company because of government restrictions -A lack of investors -Culture norms like Jante law (which looks down upon people achieving success..a requirement for social mobility): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante With all of this said, there can't possibly be that much social mobility. It limits the success of anyone that truly wants to improve their lifestyle and redistributes their wealth to everyone, even if they don't contribute anything to society for the better. This isn't the same as social mobility. The US has great social mobility. If you are willing to put the time and effort, you can go from poor, to middle class, and even rich. You don't even have to have an education. The possibilities are endless. In countries like Sweden, your possibilities are limited severely, but the amount of free money you get from the government is much more. So, you pretty much end up with one class of people. Both low and upper classes converge toward the middle. The average wages show this in practice: http://lostinstockholm.com/2012/01/10/average-salaries-in-sweden-by-occupation/ http://lostinstockholm.com/2012/01/10/average-salaries-in-sw... All successful companies (IKEA is a good example of this) (and even many singers) leave Sweden because of these harsh restrictions. "The US has a strong culture of valuing social mobility (pull yourself up by your own bootstraps), but it's not the case in practice." It's not the case now because so many people aren't willing to put the work into it. All of the successful people that I know worked nights, days, and weekends for years. The majority of people just aren't willing to put the effort to succeed. They want to party during college, have fun on the weekends, and hang out with their friends or watch TV at night. This is fine, but you can't expect to get ahead in any career unless you sacrifice. "I agree that it's not a good feeling to watch your tax rate go up in response to success. But societies that don't engage in redistributive practices in that vein empirically end up in a worse spot across the board (economically and socially)" I disagree. Everyone talks about how bad the US is, yet we have millions of immigrants begging to get in every year and are still the most powerful country in the world. This isn't by luck. It's because of the economic system currently in place and the ability for anyone to succeed.
- badsock 11y ago
  I'm not saying this to be deliberately combative, but when you say things like "With all of this said, there can't possibly be that much social mobility." you're favouring a theoretical model over actual reality. The data in the links I posted say, unambigiously, that if you're born in a poor family in the US, you are more likely to stay poor than someone who is born in poverty in Sweden. That's not a theory, that's what the data says; and it's not controversial data - all they have to do is look at your income tax records and then your parents to see if you've escaped poverty. You make an argument about the amount of regulation, the disincentivizing force of taxes, the lack of investment, the difficulty in starting new companies. Sure, I can see how that makes sense as a concept. But the concept is clearly flawed, because if you look at the black and white numbers (as opposed to what you've observed anecdotally) it doesn't reflect what's actually happened on the ground. Despite the high taxes, despite all of the companies that are apparently fleeing the country, despite all of the regulations, poor Swedes with gumption and drive actually have a better chance at escaping poverty than poor Americans. There's any number of theories about why that is: it's easier to take chances on starting a company when you know you're not risking homelessness when you fail; very low cost higher education is actually helpful in improving your lot in life; having high quality nutrition and primary education regardless of your parent's income helps poor children do better, etc. But those are just theories - who knows if they're right? They're just possible explanations for how things got to be the way they are. Bottom line is that Sweden (and many other leftist countries) are doing well at making sure the average person living there is being rewarded according to who they are and not who their parents are. The US, though it has many impressive qualities, and though people talk a lot about hard work being rewarded, isn't doing as well. In terms of your link about immigration, "tens of people" rioting is not the kind of numbers that people should look at when deciding policy. Riots involving thousands of people often happen over sports, yet there's no call for legislation around that. Also, an article describing problems that muslims cause from a site called "United With Isreal" is clearly not a good source of unbiased opinion on the matter.

by badsock 11y ago

paulhauggis 11y ago

"I don't think you can blame immigrants as the deciding factor in crime" I'm not blaming immigrants. At this point, we have 2nd and 3rd generations of citizens that have not integrated into US culture and continue to keep their own. You don't see this in countries like Sweden, Denmark, or Finland for instance. When you do, things like this happens: http://unitedwithisrael.org/it-was-like-a-war-zone-muslims-riot-in-sweden/ http://unitedwithisrael.org/it-was-like-a-war-zone-muslims-r... I'm blaming people with broken cultures and views that don't integrate into their host country. Abandoning broken cultures is a good thing as it helps us progress as a society. We are so politically correct in the US, broken cultures are not only allowed to survive, but thrive. "I'm genuinely arguing from the perspective of wanting a better society," We have a great society now. Of course it's not perfect and could use some changes. However, limiting successful people and encouraging people to not work is not the answer. The ability to succeed has been what's made us great in the first place. We should be encouraging and rewarding success and making it easier for the average person to start and build a company, not harder. "in terms of social mobility, the data directly contradicts you:" You have: -High taxes (When added up, Sweden is close to 70%..which is on par with Denmark, Finland, Norway, and France) -The inability for the average person to start a company because of government restrictions -A lack of investors -Culture norms like Jante law (which looks down upon people achieving success..a requirement for social mobility): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante With all of this said, there can't possibly be that much social mobility. It limits the success of anyone that truly wants to improve their lifestyle and redistributes their wealth to everyone, even if they don't contribute anything to society for the better. This isn't the same as social mobility. The US has great social mobility. If you are willing to put the time and effort, you can go from poor, to middle class, and even rich. You don't even have to have an education. The possibilities are endless. In countries like Sweden, your possibilities are limited severely, but the amount of free money you get from the government is much more. So, you pretty much end up with one class of people. Both low and upper classes converge toward the middle. The average wages show this in practice: http://lostinstockholm.com/2012/01/10/average-salaries-in-sweden-by-occupation/ http://lostinstockholm.com/2012/01/10/average-salaries-in-sw... All successful companies (IKEA is a good example of this) (and even many singers) leave Sweden because of these harsh restrictions. "The US has a strong culture of valuing social mobility (pull yourself up by your own bootstraps), but it's not the case in practice." It's not the case now because so many people aren't willing to put the work into it. All of the successful people that I know worked nights, days, and weekends for years. The majority of people just aren't willing to put the effort to succeed. They want to party during college, have fun on the weekends, and hang out with their friends or watch TV at night. This is fine, but you can't expect to get ahead in any career unless you sacrifice. "I agree that it's not a good feeling to watch your tax rate go up in response to success. But societies that don't engage in redistributive practices in that vein empirically end up in a worse spot across the board (economically and socially)" I disagree. Everyone talks about how bad the US is, yet we have millions of immigrants begging to get in every year and are still the most powerful country in the world. This isn't by luck. It's because of the economic system currently in place and the ability for anyone to succeed.

badsock 11y ago
I'm not saying this to be deliberately combative, but when you say things like "With all of this said, there can't possibly be that much social mobility." you're favouring a theoretical model over actual reality. The data in the links I posted say, unambigiously, that if you're born in a poor family in the US, you are more likely to stay poor than someone who is born in poverty in Sweden. That's not a theory, that's what the data says; and it's not controversial data - all they have to do is look at your income tax records and then your parents to see if you've escaped poverty. You make an argument about the amount of regulation, the disincentivizing force of taxes, the lack of investment, the difficulty in starting new companies. Sure, I can see how that makes sense as a concept. But the concept is clearly flawed, because if you look at the black and white numbers (as opposed to what you've observed anecdotally) it doesn't reflect what's actually happened on the ground. Despite the high taxes, despite all of the companies that are apparently fleeing the country, despite all of the regulations, poor Swedes with gumption and drive actually have a better chance at escaping poverty than poor Americans. There's any number of theories about why that is: it's easier to take chances on starting a company when you know you're not risking homelessness when you fail; very low cost higher education is actually helpful in improving your lot in life; having high quality nutrition and primary education regardless of your parent's income helps poor children do better, etc. But those are just theories - who knows if they're right? They're just possible explanations for how things got to be the way they are. Bottom line is that Sweden (and many other leftist countries) are doing well at making sure the average person living there is being rewarded according to who they are and not who their parents are. The US, though it has many impressive qualities, and though people talk a lot about hard work being rewarded, isn't doing as well. In terms of your link about immigration, "tens of people" rioting is not the kind of numbers that people should look at when deciding policy. Riots involving thousands of people often happen over sports, yet there's no call for legislation around that. Also, an article describing problems that muslims cause from a site called "United With Isreal" is clearly not a good source of unbiased opinion on the matter.