Egg on their Income inequality face
Oh the irony this article presents.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-12/income-inequality-is-hi…
Trending Content
| +81 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 49 | 8h | |
| +52 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 1h | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 1d | |
| +38 | How to sound more eloquent? | 15 | 47m | |
| +38 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 20h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 1d | |
| +27 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 10 | 4h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 3h | |
| +25 | Carnivore Diet | 9 | 4h | |
| +25 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 6 | 1h |
Career Resources
How is that ironic? Seems like the expected cause and effect...
eh? Assuming American elections and government sector works like most countries, I'm not sure how you think things work.
If their end goal is take from the wealthy (republicans?) and give to those who agree with them (districts like these) and they had achieved that end to some degree after having 2 terms of a Democrat president at Federal level, wouldn't the gini coefficient in Democrat neighbourhoods be lower, not higher?
This is intuitive. I have no doubt all of those districts are in the worst part of town. I know for a fact that Chaka dude represents a bad part of Philly.
I'm also confused. Whose faces is the egg on?
You're implying that Democrats cause income inequality when the reality is:
People that live in areas with high income inequality -> vote for measures that will reduce income inequality -> Democrats
Chicken and egg.
If you harp on something constantly that you want to change (income inequality) people should rightly assume that the areas you represent should have below average instances of the said problem. However in this case this is egg on the faces of the democrats who go around claiming this is the worst thing since the last talking point when they can't even get their own houses in line with having an acceptable income inequality distribution.
How can you fix something for everyone when you cant even fix it for a few.
I think that's because the tools you need to fix these problems with aren't handed out on district representation levels. They come with state and federal power.
I think I see the point you're trying to make, but I think you need more information to support it.
Voting at a district level alone doesn't determine how that district is governed at a state or federal level eg those most Democrat state or federal district may sit in a Republican state and be subject to Republican state policies. So the "getting your house in order" argument doesn't seem to add up.
Wouldn't the more meaningful approach be to measure Gini coefficient of Democrat states after multi-term Democrat governance, and/or the same at a Federal level?
Yes, most of those districts are in democratic strongholds some have even had consistent democratic rule for over 50 years at all levels of government.
The real point is, democrats don't actually care about income inequality. It just happens to be the talking point that tested the highest for emotional effect.
So are you saying they don't actually do anything about redistribution ie they do not "take from people who disagree with them and give it to those who agree"?
No one cares about helping poor and uneducated people. The reality is many of these people get this way because of poor choices. Dropping out of school, having children early one, committing crimes, etc. All condemn people to working these poor paying jobs.
You want to fix income inequality? Take away personal choice. Force people to attend school in a polite manner, do not allow them to have children until 25-30 and mandate hard work and you'll see inequality drop like a lead weight.
I don't think this provides the "egg on the face" argument you hoped. As others pointed out, you don't have the evidence to separate cause and effect.
I do, however, think this provides some insight into the goals of voters in these areas. Democrats aren't likely winning on abortion, immigration, climate change, gay rights, women's rights, defense, etc. They are winning on a platform of wealth redistribution.
If income inequality is worse in Democratic districts, wouldn't it then make sense that they are raising the issue?
Not sure why you guys are spinning your wheels. The people spending their time harping on income inequality suck at reducing it. That's the case on a federal level, too. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the "why," but I think that's the point.
As for how this puts egg on their face, it doesn't, because they have no self awareness. But when you had the War on Poverty and the Great Society, when you do all of this handwringing and have nothing to show for it, regardless of whether you think that 'proves' anything, yeah, you screwed up. Either from supporting failed policies or not getting your shit together with good policy. Of course, these are politicians we're talking about.
Aut laborum inventore non velit. Eius accusantium voluptates ut voluptas molestias magni voluptas laboriosam. Unde aut reprehenderit voluptatem iste corporis quibusdam. In qui iusto quia qui. Excepturi eaque ratione eaque omnis nemo.
Laudantium nobis sunt non. Similique porro praesentium omnis id doloribus ex eveniet dolores. Ipsa amet ea ut error similique modi.
Rem omnis deleniti neque. Distinctio saepe eveniet a voluptatem eum. Et ullam quis at sint dolorum delectus. Praesentium maiores neque voluptatum voluptate qui dicta. Maiores officiis quia id ipsa doloribus. Aperiam rerum aliquam et.
Aliquid dolor repellat vel. Nam rerum cupiditate modi illum aliquam eum. Placeat blanditiis sunt aut voluptatem. Quis repellat est voluptatem provident. Quae non aut quas quis dolor doloribus quia in.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...