Anti-Intellectualism is Killing America

Jack of Spades · Dec 15, 2016

LouisBooth said:
I think this might be more telling if you based it on population. I'd also like to see the criteria for "poorest" and "richest" before giving credence to this statistic.

These are the best numbers I could find, they're almost 10 years gap, but I don't believe that the change in either direction is significant enough to undermine the general idea:

Norway
- number of companies 321 874 (2003)
- population 5 200 000
- 0,06 companies per capita or 1 company per 16,2 people

USA
- number of companies 30 000 000 (US 2015)
- population 325 000 000
- 0,09 companies per capita or 1 company per 10,8 people

The US actually has more businesses per capita than Norway does. Which goes to the opposite direction of your claim, the CEO income should be relatively smaller in the US, yet it's 5-6 times higher.

LouisBooth said:
I would submit that the US is one of the richest countries in the world and even our "poor" are rich by the world "poor" standard. Again, on the topic of CEOs if you post this along a stat of companies in each country it would be more convincing.

I already posted the average incomes of the respective countries, the US ranked about 15% higher than the country in comparison, Norway, but as Norway has more free public services for it's citizens, that compensation should be taken into account when it comes to living standard.

I'm done for searching statistics for this topic for now. If you want to keep making statistical claims, you should provide the data.

chevyontheriver · Dec 15, 2016

jimmyjimmy said:
I agree.

Most conservatives I know are great thinkers, well using their critical thinking skills, while Liberals on the other hand, tend more toward postmodern relativistic "thought" , and they also tend to form arguments based on emotions rather than facts, reasons and logic.

The article is aimed at the wrong party, IMO.

It's painful to think, at least according to Arne Naess. Probably equally painful for liberals and conservatives. In the last election most people acted like lemmings.

JackRT · Dec 15, 2016

In 1960 a CEO typically made about ten times the income of his lowest paid full time employee. Today that difference is between ten and a hundred times that amount. Senior executives also take their place at the trough. Even if a CEO is dismissed, s/he will typically walk away with a multi-million dollar termination bonus. Companies are frequently being looted at the expense of the employees and the shareholders. We seem to be drifting backwards --- back to the days of the robber barons.

OldWiseGuy · Dec 16, 2016

JackRT said:
In 1960 a CEO typically made about ten times the income of his lowest paid full time employee. Today that difference is between ten and a hundred times that amount. Senior executives also take their place at the trough. Even if a CEO is dismissed, s/he will typically walk away with a multi-million dollar termination bonus. Companies are frequently being looted at the expense of the employees and the shareholders. We seem to be drifting backwards --- back to the days of the robber barons.

Perhaps it is the people themselves who have allowed this to happen.

'The People' (by Campanella)

" The people is a beast of muddy brain

That knows not its own force, and therefore stands

Loaded with wood and stone; the powerless hands
Of a mere child guide it with bit and rein;

One kick would be enough to break the chain;

But the beast fears, and what the child demands,
It does; nor its own terror understands,

Confused and stupefied by bugbears vain.

Most wonderful: With its own hand it ties
And gags itself—gives itself death and war.
For pence doled out by kings from its own store.

Its own are all things between earth and heaven;

But this it knows not; and if one arise
To tell this truth, it kills him unforgiven."

It is the mass (mob) market that has placed Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and others on their financial thrones. I hate to think what would happen to someone who arose and revealed that buying that new iphone or computer will help the super-rich to become even richer. Kill him unforgiven?

LouisBooth · Dec 16, 2016

Jack of Spades said:
The US actually has more businesses per capita than Norway does. Which goes to the opposite direction of your claim

So then have you factored in THE AVERAGE owner of these business' wage? I hightly doubt it based on what its deemed a company. The average company owner *ie small business owner* is the CEO and isn't paid anywhere close to the wages you've indicated. It's a false linkage you're making.

Jack of Spades said:
I'm done for searching statistics for this topic for now

I'm not making the claim, YOU are. I'm just showing you how your statistics are flawed and not proving your point.

Jack of Spades · Dec 16, 2016

LouisBooth said:
I'm just showing you how your statistics are flawed and not proving your point.

While not proof, they are all so far indicators towards the same conclusion -> there is something in the US policies that promotes growth of income inequality.

LouisBooth · Dec 16, 2016

Jack of Spades said:
While not proof

That's exactly right.

Jack of Spades said:
there is something in the US policies that promotes growth of income inequality.

I disagree with your conclusion. I'd say that the inequality coupled with the growing lack of education shows that workers are not gaining the skills needed to get paid more. At this time I won't go into proving that statement though as I'm not making the claim, just thinking that's what the "indicators" show.

Jack of Spades · Dec 16, 2016

LouisBooth said:
That's exactly right.

You do know what an indicator is, do you?

In statistics, you can prove hardly anything, but you can find strong indicators for things that are, in fact, true.

LouisBooth · Dec 16, 2016

Jack of Spades said:
You do know what an indicator is, do you?

In statistics, you can prove hardly anything, but you can find strong indicators for things that are, in fact, true.

and those indicators do not say what you want them to say based off the left out factors I've put forth.

SteveB28 · Dec 16, 2016

LouisBooth said:
As for your polling, lets just leave it at it was wrong as were most national polls showing Clinton winning.

Except for the fact that Mrs Clinton WON the election nationally by nearly 3 MILLION VOTES, of course....!

.

LouisBooth · Dec 16, 2016

SteveB28 said:
Except for the fact that Mrs Clinton WON the election nationally by nearly 3 MILLION VOTES, of course....!

.

And? She still lost. The DNC got a ton of people to go out in cali to up her vote total and it's one of the reasons she lost. The DNC apparently has no clue how the EC works. She didn't win nationally, she won locally in calli and new York. So my statement still stands. She didn't win nationally, she won locally in cali and NY.

SteveB28 · Dec 16, 2016

LouisBooth said:
And? She still lost. The DNC got a ton of people to go out in cali to up her vote total and it's one of the reasons she lost. The DNC apparently has no clue how the EC works. She didn't win nationally, she won locally in calli and new York. So my statement still stands. She didn't win nationally, she won locally in cali and NY.

I responded to your claim that NATIONAL polls were incorrect in predicting a win for Mrs Clinton.

NATIONAL polls were correct.....Mrs Clinton has won NATIONALLY by nearly 3 million votes!

And the only way you can counter that fact is to do just as your Glorious Leader does....to massage those numbers into a lie. The states you mention are every bit as part of the total as any other two states. As others have suggested, how about we ignore Texas? How would that effect Glorious Leader's results?

Face this fact....you have a MINORITY president. He will indeed be in office, but with the smallest minority of support in US history...no massaging will change that simple truth.

.

bhsmte · Dec 18, 2016

SteveB28 said:
I responded to your claim that NATIONAL polls were incorrect in predicting a win for Mrs Clinton.

NATIONAL polls were correct.....Mrs Clinton has won NATIONALLY by nearly 3 million votes!

And the only way you can counter that fact is to do just as your Glorious Leader does....to massage those numbers into a lie. The states you mention are every bit as part of the total as any other two states. As others have suggested, how about we ignore Texas? How would that effect Glorious Leader's results?

Face this fact....you have a MINORITY president. He will indeed be in office, but with the smallest minority of support in US history...no massaging will change that simple truth.

.

In a presidential election, national polls are somewhat meaningless. The polls in the 5-6 key states that both candidates were desperately trying to win got it wrong though.

LouisBooth · Dec 19, 2016

SteveB28 said:
Mrs Clinton has won NATIONALLY by nearly 3 million votes!

No, the way I counter that is the democrats are idiots and pumped up people to vote in California and that's where the extra votes came from.

SteveB28 said:
you have a MINORITY president.

You keep saying that as democrats continue to lose elections. I'll just chuckle and let you be in your own little world.

SteveB28 · Dec 19, 2016

LouisBooth said:
No, the way I counter that is the democrats are idiots and pumped up people to vote in California and that's where the extra votes came from.

You keep saying that as democrats continue to lose elections. I'll just chuckle and let you be in your own little world.

And Trump only wins because of Texas. So what?

.

Received · Dec 20, 2016

LouisBooth said:
No, the way I counter that is the democrats are idiots and pumped up people to vote in California and that's where the extra votes came from.

You keep saying that as democrats continue to lose elections. I'll just chuckle and let you be in your own little world.

Well, California being the sixth biggest economy in the world means they're doing something right.

bhsmte · Dec 20, 2016

Jack of Spades said:
These are the best numbers I could find, they're almost 10 years gap, but I don't believe that the change in either direction is significant enough to undermine the general idea:

Norway
- number of companies 321 874 (2003)
- population 5 200 000
- 0,06 companies per capita or 1 company per 16,2 people

USA
- number of companies 30 000 000 (US 2015)
- population 325 000 000
- 0,09 companies per capita or 1 company per 10,8 people

The US actually has more businesses per capita than Norway does. Which goes to the opposite direction of your claim, the CEO income should be relatively smaller in the US, yet it's 5-6 times higher.

I already posted the average incomes of the respective countries, the US ranked about 15% higher than the country in comparison, Norway, but as Norway has more free public services for it's citizens, that compensation should be taken into account when it comes to living standard.

I'm done for searching statistics for this topic for now. If you want to keep making statistical claims, you should provide the data.

the other thing you have to factor in, are the taxes in Norway. I believe they are quite a bit higher than the US. In fact, I believe their tax rate is double the US rate.

bhsmte · Dec 20, 2016

JackRT said:
In 1960 a CEO typically made about ten times the income of his lowest paid full time employee. Today that difference is between ten and a hundred times that amount. Senior executives also take their place at the trough. Even if a CEO is dismissed, s/he will typically walk away with a multi-million dollar termination bonus. Companies are frequently being looted at the expense of the employees and the shareholders. We seem to be drifting backwards --- back to the days of the robber barons.

this differential between ceo's and the average employee, has escalated tremendously In even the last 10 years. One reason why, the bulk of the wealth has gone to the top 1% at record numbers in the last 10 years.

Belk · Dec 20, 2016

bhsmte said:
the other thing you have to factor in, are the taxes in Norway. I believe they are quite a bit higher than the US. In fact, I believe their tax rate is double the US rate.

The taxes in Norway are 62%? That seems off.

SteveB28 · Dec 20, 2016

Belk said:
The taxes in Norway are 62%? That seems off.

It has hovered around 40% for many years.

This may seem high to some, but consider also that Norwegians have a heavily subsidised health care system and their education is virtually free from kindergarten to university.

.

Anti-Intellectualism is Killing America

I told you so

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

I told you so

Well-Known Member

I told you so

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

True love waits in haunted attics

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads