A practical application of socialist ideas (Read 1168 times)


Doughboy

     MTA: and I challenge anybody in the USA to do a "wiki" search for the definition of "middle class in USA" this morning.  Apparently SOPA has changed our ability to search wiki.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=middle+class+in+USA&button=

     

    What do I win?

     

    <dl><dt>Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?</dt></dl><dl><dd>Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by disabling JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page. Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message.</dd></dl>


    Dave

      I maybe shouldn't be surprised, but I was somewhat surprised that the definition of middle class (upper middle class) dealt with "INCOME" rather than "NET WORTH".  Haven't found much relating to the worth of a household and its relationship to class.

       

      When I was reading the link, my original thought was that "NET WORTH" would be a better basis for defining societal classes.  Highly leverage people who earn more than $xxk seem like they may live like they're middle class, but in reality, they're not.

       

      However, in retrospect, I guess that INCOME is a better gauge for considering and classifying middle class.  Seems like "NET WORTH / WEALTH" may be a good gauge for classes above middle class.

       

      Statistics on net worth are really fascinating and probably a WHOLE lot lower than you might think.

       

      The mean tends to skew the averages because of the significant wealth disparity in the US. 

       

      Peak median networth is in the age group 55-64 and is right around $250K.

       

      Averaging all families, it comes to $120K per family average net worth.  Presumably middle class should be some standard deviation around the median.

       

      Bear in mind this includes the value of all retirement accounts, housing equity, etc.

      I ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it.

      dgb2n@yahoo.com


      No Talent Drips

         

        You should go get the clap just so you can give it to her. --beef

        TripleBock


          I do not understand how 55-64 Y/Os are only @ $250k - Although is this per person - So a married couple = $500K?

           

           

           

          Statistics on net worth are really fascinating and probably a WHOLE lot lower than you might think.

           

          The mean tends to skew the averages because of the significant wealth disparity in the US. 

           

          Peak median networth is in the age group 55-64 and is right around $250K.

           

          Averaging all families, it comes to $120K per family average net worth.  Presumably middle class should be some standard deviation around the median.

           

          Bear in mind this includes the value of all retirement accounts, housing equity, etc.

          I am fuller bodied than Dopplebock

            I do not understand how 55-64 Y/Os are only @ $250k - Although is this per person - So a married couple = $500K?

            Median -  Half the people have more than that and the other half less than that, sounds about right.  

              I do not understand how 55-64 Y/Os are only @ $250k - Although is this per person - So a married couple = $500K?

               

              I'm not surprised (as it's MEDIAN).  In fact, I'm kind of surprised that 1/2 of the households have as much as $250k in worth.  Wouldn't have been overly surprised if it were lower.

              2014 Goals:

              #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

              #2: 365 Hours training

               


              Needs more cowbell!

                 Animated Emoticons

                 

                We should petition Eric to add that smilie...

                Kirsten - aka "Auntie Kirsten"

                '14 Goals:

                • 2 olympic distance duathlons -- 6 days apart -- PR at least 1

                • 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)


                Dave

                  I do not understand how 55-64 Y/Os are only @ $250k - Although is this per person - So a married couple = $500K?

                   

                  That is a "per family" figure.  It reinforces that savings rates are really low relative to income in this country.  People spend what they earn.  And usually then some.

                   

                  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0721.pdf

                   

                  Also consider that at that point, the family has had 30-40 working years to accumulate net worth.  Just looking at that as a straight line number, it means only $8000 per year roughly in accumulated net worth including all appreciation on assets, paying down a mortgage over that time, etc.

                  I ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it.

                  dgb2n@yahoo.com

                    We should petition Eric to add that smilie...

                     

                    :-poooo

                    Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                    Scout7


                    CPT Curmudgeon

                      Socialism is not at all what was being described in the story.

                       

                      Redistribution of wealth is not a hallmark of Socialism.  It's not even technically a hallmark of Communism.

                       

                      In a Socialist environment, the means of production and distribution of goods and services are, by and large, owned by the government.  What little private industry exists is strictly controlled, generally through legislation to set prices and output levels.

                       

                      In theory, the government is a duly elected one, and always represents the will of the people.  Of course, in a Republic (which is what the US is), it is theoretically the same idea.

                       

                      The teacher is not elected, he is closer to a monarch or despot.  His decision to distribute grades according to an average is not really directly dictating the production of right answers.  All he's done is show that people like to be rewarded for their efforts in some fashion.  However, that reward does NOT have to be monetary (or in this example, a good grade).  It can be done through other means.  Even in a Socialist setting, it would be possible to instill a level of competition amongst people, if done correctly (promotions, days off, titles, increases in pay, bonuses, etc.).

                       

                      Besides, in Socialism, goods are still distributed based on a person's efforts.  In Communism, goods are distributed based on needs.  So now the question is...  How much does a student "need" an A?  Would a B do?  Why not a C?

                        too many people think they can only scrape by on 80 grand a year.  adjust your expectations or risk becomming another Willy Loman.  the middle class in America... we've made it.  it's what people have said they've been struggling for for thousands of years.  it just seems to be human nature to think 3 cars > 2 cars and so on and so on...

                        In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

                        http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

                         

                         

                         





                          too many people think they can only scrape by on 80 grand a year.  adjust your expectations or risk becomming another Willy Loman.  the middle class in America... we've made it.  it's what people have said they've been struggling for for thousands of years.  it just seems to be human nature to think 3 cars > 2 cars and so on and so on...

                           

                          Yup!

                          +1

                          2014 Goals:

                          #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                          #2: 365 Hours training

                           


                          A Dance with Monkeys

                            I think Ternt may have been referring to this bit of Rick Santorum's genious

                             

                            Correct
                              Correct

                               Gotcha.  Haven't been following the details of that political stuff yet.

                              2014 Goals:

                              #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                              #2: 365 Hours training

                               


                              Prince of Fatness

                                I thought America did not have a class system.

                                 

                                I've been told that I have no class.

                                Semi-retired.