Heaven on Earth

I think that there are several things that people often discuss about a society that they would like to see:
(1) No immigration
(2) Ethnic uniformity
(3) Equality of income (no super rich, no poor)
(4) Good education
(5) Zero population Growth

Probably the country that comes close to meeting these specifications in Hungary. There is almost no immigration, as it's borders are well controlled. Almost 19/20 of the people are of a single ethnicity, with minorities of gypsies and a few other groups.

By most measures of uniformity of income Hungary ranks in the top countries in the world. There are no billionaires in Hungary (although one of the world's richest men, George Soros, lived there until he was age 17).

An excellent education system exists and Hungarians have historically been some of the world's best mathematicians. Hungary is a reasonably popular tourist destination so that it has a strong industry without overwhelming the culture.

In 1981 Hungary's population reached a peak. It was essentially the first country in the world that naturally stopped growing by a combination of birth control and the personal desire to limit family size instead of famine and war. The population has been steadily declining since then, but at a slow rate. The population is not dropping nearly as fast as places like Russia or Bulgaria. In the last 29 years, the population has dropped to what it was in 1956 (25 years before the peak in 1981).

Why do you think they have the highest suicide rate in the European Union?

My guess is #3. Show me a country with equality of income, and I'll show you a country where everyone is poor. Those who work harder deserve to be rewarded for it. The only one of those goals I agree with is #4.

I agree with the Wiz, Hungary's Gini index is ~25 and is the third lowest in the world. The Gini index is a measure of income equality, the lower it is the more equal income is. On the other hand, the US has a Gini of ~45 but our per capita is almost four times that of Hungary. In other words, even the poor people in the US (who work, let's not talk about welfare recipients) have an income twice that of someone in Hungary and they also have the potential to become one of those people making 100k/year. In Hungary, you're pretty much stuck at 13k/year and don't have a lot of room for growth.

Let me ask you a question: Where would you rather live? A country where you live on 13k/year regardless or a country where your standard of living is higher and you at least have a chance to become very wealthy?

Equality of wealth or equality of poverty?
A certain lack of hope might exist, a sense of futility though I understand Scandinavian countries tend to have near equality of salaries also.
I'd look at micronutrient depleted soils too and seek a temporal concentration of suicides.

Hungary is only a little bit poor by the standards of the world. They have basic wants and needs met, and plenty of food. It has a similar HDI as Poland or even Mexico, but without the inequalities.

The Nordic countries have a high degree of equality (low GINI coefficient) but with higher overall income and some billionaires. Ethnicity issues with immigrants (especially with Muslims) are much more pronounced.

I remember an article written a few years ago in Forbes that says it is imperative to have income inequality in a society, as long as everyone is getting richer.

==================
The Inequality Imperative
Dan Seligman, 10 Oct 2005

The notorious income gap keeps widening. This has been going on for a long time, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike.

Like trout irresistibly drawn to flashy lures, the liberal media are always a good bet to get themselves in trouble when the subject of inequality is dangled before them. It happened again the other day when the Census Bureau released income data for 2004. Instantly in high-dudgeon mode, New York Times editorialists noted that the report showed income inequality near alltime highs, then added: "Income inequality is an economic and social ill, but the Administration and the congressional majority don't seem to recognize that."

Given the editorialists' recurring objections to George Bush's tax cuts, their implication here was clear: The Bush Administration has been especially awful in creating inequality. That implication is wrong. The reality is that measured inequality has been rising steadily for close to 30 years and hit successive new highs in the Carter, Reagan, elder Bush and Clinton administrations before doing the exact same thing under the younger Bush.

Getting to Gini

That dotted line depicts the unreal world of perfect equality. The solid line depicts reality in 2004, with half of U.S. family income going to the top 20%. The Gini coefficient, 0.466, is defined to equal twice the shaded area.


The standard measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient, signifying the extent to which a society deviates from absolute equality. If everybody has the same income, the coefficient is 0; if the entire GDP belongs to one person, the coefficient is 1. In the U.S. the latest reported coefficient is 0.466. In case you are wondering, it rose more under Clinton--from 0.433 to 0.462--than under any of those other chaps. It rose by only 0.004 during George W. Bush's first four years. In case you are also wondering how many times Times editorialists complained about Clinton's inequality record, the answer is zero. The Washington Post has been equally tendentious, and at one point (Sept. 25, 1998) it ran a front-page story on the 1997 income report in which it stated firmly that the census data showed "income inequality did not increase," even though the data clearly pointed to a substantial one-year increase of 0.004. There was no correction.

But ultimately it is foolish to attribute inequality to government programs. There are some programs, e.g., tax and welfare measures, that affect income equality, but they tend not to be decisive. If they were, then Gini coefficients would not also be rising in developed countries across Europe and Japan--even though many of these countries have relatively homogeneous populations and Social Democratic governments committed to egalitarian principles. It is true that the Gini numbers remain a lot lower in most other developed countries. Recent figures for Japan have been 0.249, for Germany 0.283, for France 0.327. But those countries have paid heavy prices for their relative income equality. Just about all of them have had lower growth rates than the U.S., and most of them (an exception is Japan) have far higher unemployment rates. The reality is that in democratic free-market societies, more inequality tends to mean more growth.

In some measure the long-standing increase in the U.S. Gini reflects an increase in female-headed households, which tend to be poorer, and in two-income households, which are relatively affluent. Another source of inequality has been the decline of organized labor. It now represents only 8% of the U.S. private-sector labor force, meaning that fewer employers are now committed to standardized wage rates. In the great global economy they are also under new pressure to hold down wages.

The driving force behind income inequality has been meritocracy, i.e., workers get what they're worth. And in periods of boundless technological innovation, like the present, brains and talent are suddenly worth a lot more. The demand for mental skills has exploded. The total U.S. labor force has grown by a little more than one-third in the past two decades, but managerial and professional jobs have roughly doubled, from 24 million to more than 48 million.

Eleven years after its explosive debut, The Bell Curve, by the late Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, remains one of the best available guides to the current state of inequality. The book described the rise of a new "cognitive elite" and of a world in which the great dividing force is intelligence. And as we discover by examining psychometric bell curves, inequalities in human intelligence are real and inescapable. There is a high likelihood that those Ginis will go right on climbing.

The peaking and subsequent decay of population began in Hungary and spread through the countries of Eastern Europe.

Country	yr-max	max-pop	2010-pop	Per Yr
Hungary	1981	10,711,848	9,880,059	-0.28%
Latvia	1989	2,667,309	2,217,969	-0.87%
Estonia	1989	1,570,926	1,291,170	-0.93%
Bulgaria	1989	8,990,055	7,148,785	-1.09%
Romania	1990	22,865,945	22,181,287	-0.15%
Serbia	1990	7,786,397	7,344,847	-0.29%
Croatia	1991	4,540,641	4,486,881	-0.06%
Lithuania	1991	3,702,136	3,545,319	-0.23%
Moldova	1993	4,443,777	4,317,483	-0.17%
Belarus	1993	10,250,444	9,612,632	-0.38%
Ukraine	1993	51,884,227	45,415,596	-0.78%
Czech Republic	1994	10,330,165	10,201,707	-0.08%
Russia	1995	148,490,269	139,390,205	-0.42%
Slovenia	1997	2,011,612	2,003,136	-0.03%
Poland	1998	38,668,756	38,463,689	-0.04%
Montenegro	2000	732,302	666,730	-0.93%

In recent years populations of Japan, Italy, Spain and Germany have peaked in recent years. Other countries have long ago gone below replacement level without immigration, and are changing ethnicity. France is getting large numbers of Arab and African immigrants, UK is getting immigration from all over the former Empire.

Without immigration the following countries have total fertility rates under 2 and cannot naturally replace themselves. They are listed in order of size down to a population of 20 million. About 45% of the world lives in countries that cannot replace themselves.
China
Russia
Japan
Vietnam
Germany
Iran
Thailand
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Korea, South
Ukraine
Spain
Poland
Algeria
Canada
Uzbekistan
Taiwan
Korea, North
Romania
Australia
Sri Lanka

I would like to recommend an interview with Mark Steyn, he's a well-known Canadian who is a conservative (in US terms). He wrote a book titled "The End of the World as We Know It", which I have not read, but in this interview he talks about the decline of the western world who has been forced to bring in Muslims which are ruining their cultural heritage. The problem with this isn't just the people that are directly immigrating, it's the fact that they are having 4-5 kids per family while the native Europeans are have 1-2 kids per family... in essence within a couple of generations Islam will have taken over Europe. One could argue that these children are westernized, but I have a few euro friends who would disagree with you for the most part.

I've heard some people who like to compare this to our immigration problem of Hispanics, which I vehemently disagree with. Although I disagree with any form of amnesty and personally believe that we should kick out every illegal immigrant, which isn't feasible, the situations are 100% different. Regardless of anyone's religious point of view, we can all agree that this country was founded on Christian principles and even though we aren't dominated by believers... I would argue that Christianity still has a strong influence on our country as it does on Western Europe where Christianity is all but gone. Hispanics come to our country with this Christian background, the Islamic immigrants do not. Honestly, I could rant about this for days so I'll stop here and give everyone the youtube link which is about 40 minutes long (5 separate videos).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P-2qILOsAg

Quote: ahiromu

I would like to recommend an interview with Mark Steyn, he's a well-known Canadian who is a conservative (in US terms)

Canada has laws against free speech that offends certain groups, and this has gotten Steyn into a heap of trouble. Perhaps he talks about that in the video, I'll watch it when I have time.

Quote: ahiromu

... forced to bring in Muslims which are ruining their cultural heritage.... Hispanics come to our country with this Christian background, the Islamic immigrants do not.

NOT PC at all to say, alas I agree; at least to say that there is huge risk with Muslim groups never assimilating. I think you can say to do so is against their religion! I'm going to post something in the free speech zone on this.

The only non-PC thing is "ruining", which is obviously an opinion but I have made it a habit to not say "in my opinion" because it tends to dilute what I'm trying to say. It's obvious it's an opinion, or else I wouldn't be saying it. You can't argue it's changing their culture, or in the end will. To do so is ignorance, but I'm willing to argue the "ruining" aspect of it. Yeah, I'm not sure if it's the same up there but much of the western world has laws that contain free speech... even the US does. In the US, I forget the term, but if your speech is provoking violence it can be stopped (I believe this has been used for some actions the KKK has taken).

Look up Geert Wilders, he's a dutch politician who has taken a hard stance against the Muslims (and other ethnic minorities who aren't willing to adapt to the Euro lifestyle). Tons of people want him to be taken in court and he's been banned from the UK because of his speech. Western Europe is already gone, anything they try and do now will just mitigate the damage.

To some far left liberal that might read this: I have nothing against Muslim immigrants or immigrants of any kind, it's when they don't respect our way of life and demand to be treated special that I have a problem. America is a melting pot, yes, but every single ethnicity and nationality has both added to the pot and adjusted to the pot.

Haiti, in this Wikipedia listing, has the lowest sucide rate. Anyone want to live there even before the earthquake? (based on World Health organization)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

BTW. 60 minutes had a segment awhile back that the happiest people on Earth were Danes.

Quote: Wizard

My guess is #3. Show me a country with equality of income, and I'll show you a country where everyone is poor. Those who work harder deserve to be rewarded for it.

Well put, Wiz. I don't see why "equality of income" is something to shoot for either. "Equality of opportunity" is something else. Not that everyone has mathematically the same chance of course, that is impossible. But if you work hard you can make it.

All you have to do to see how "equality of income" affects things is work in a union-shop. Since you make the same no matter how much better or worse you produce and getting fired is difficult, productivity tends to fall over time, meaning less wealth for everyone.

Quote: AZDuffman

Well put, Wiz. I don't see why "equality of income" is something to shoot for either.

I also don't see the attraction of such ideals.

When I worked in the garment industry, we paid according to productivity. Thus the seamstresess all got paid a basic minnimum wage, plus a progressive amount per garment made each week. By progressive I mean that, say, 5 to 10 garments paid less per item than 11 to 15 garments; the more items made per week, the higher the reward per item.

Now, we could have paid them all the same, of course. Say we pooled the number of items made per week and divided that into the number of seamstreseses. Then all woud ahve the same pay, regardless of their work. But if we'd done that, we'd have lost our best employees really soon. Would you bother to make the effort to produce, say, 25 items per week if you're only going to be paid for 6? On the other hand, we'd ahve attracted mroe employees willing to do the minimum necessary and nothing more. Eventually we'd stagnate at best and go broke at worse.

Quote: Nareed

When I worked in the garment industry, we paid according to productivity. Thus the seamstresess all got paid a basic minnimum wage, plus a progressive amount per garment made each week. By progressive I mean that, say, 5 to 10 garments paid less per item than 11 to 15 garments; the more items made per week, the higher the reward per item.

Here is another way I look at it. Want to get rid of those "evil" super-rich people? Fine, they we wouldn't have:

Steve Wynn hiring 20,000 people for the resort he built on the former Desert-Inn Site

Any number of schools and libraries from guys like Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford

Millions of preserved acres thanks to Ted Turner

Help for worlwide poor by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Any number of local charitable donations

Millions of jobs from super-rich who start yet more businesses.


Someone else already said it, but "income equality" = virtually everyone in poverty.

The income comment on the initial post seems to have caught everyone's attention.

But the other part was the lack of population growth.
Hungary is the first country in the modern world to hit a peak population (in 1981), beating the next country by 8 years. But it seems that being ethnically uniform and with the lack of a clear path to wealth are related. Money attracts immigration which also drives up birth rates.

Germany peaked in 2005, Italy in 2007, Spain next year, and the rest of Western Europe is predicted to only grow by 1% more before it begins to decline. Eastern Europe peaked 19 years ago. Basically Italy is abandoning places that have been lived in for thousands of years.

Japan peaked in 2005.

China is interesting. Just two years ago the prediction was that it would take 30 years for the population to peak at about 10% above it's current levels. The prediction today is that it will only take 15 years for the population to peak at about 5% above it's current levels. That is how dramatically the birth levels have dropped in the last two years. South Korea will grow by only 1.4% more, Thailand by 7.8%.

Even Mexico will probably not grow by more than 1/3 bigger than it's current size, and will be stabilizing in less than 50 years.

There is no peak forseen at any time soon for the United States. To the best of current predictions the USA will still be growing a century from now. The official projection is 42% in the next 40 years.

The biggest problem is that USA is not planning for that kind of growth. Urban sprawl and private transportation are still the norm.

It is interesting that Japan with a population that has been declining for 5 years, makes plans (at least paper plans) for building mega structures in Tokyo Bay that will house 3/4 million people.

The problem with this whole discussion is that you all have essentially set up a straw man -- income equality. No U.S. politicians or economists advocate that, not even Obama and his Socialist cronies.

What people are right to be concerned about is runaway income inequality -- the disappearing middle class. Unregulated markets and tax policies have obliterated the Great Middle that made this country what it is. It's not as if we have perfectly moral and rational economic system that pays people exactly what they're worth. What we have is a system that skews to the top -- trickle up economics. Warren Buffett has famously wondered why he pays a lower tax rate on his investment income than his secretary pays for her earned wages.

Consider this: the average salary of a CEO of a company in the S&P 500 is more than $11 million. That translates to more than $5,000/hour. Make no mistake, I think CEOs should be paid more than regular folks, but salaries in the financial sector have just gotten out of hand. How can we say that paying millions to Wall Street people who are essentially professional gamblers (and who sank our economy) is reflective of a just and democratic society?

Population problems are over-rated.

Population density can be a problem. See Mexico City. But a large population by itself is not a problem. consider America, what percentage of the land in the US is still empty? America could easily support well over a billion people.

Quote: nyuhoosier

The problem with this whole discussion is that you all have essentially set up a straw man -- income equality. No U.S. politicians or economists advocate that, not even Obama and his Socialist cronies.

What people are right to be concerned about is runaway income inequality -- the disappearing middle class. Unregulated markets and tax policies have obliterated the Great Middle that made this country what it is. It's not as if we have perfectly moral and rational economic system that pays people exactly what they're worth. What we have is a system that skews to the top -- trickle up economics. Warren Buffett has famously wondered why he pays a lower tax rate on his investment income than his secretary pays for her earned wages.

Consider this: the average salary of a CEO of a company in the S&P 500 is more than $11 million. That translates to more than $5,000/hour. Make no mistake, I think CEOs should be paid more than regular folks, but salaries in the financial sector have just gotten out of hand. How can we say that paying millions to Wall Street people who are essentially professional gamblers (and who sank our economy) is reflective of a just and democratic society?

People like to blame the CEO and "Wall Street" but that is not where the blame belongs. The CEO making $11MM a year is doing so because a Board of Directors felt he or she was worth it. Many times they are. Consider Ford. The Great-Grandson of the founder ascended into the CEO slot and esentially destroyed the company. The guy who replaced him has essentially saved Ford. Saved a multi-billion $$$ company. If I am a shareholder I am happy to pay him $11MM or much more.

As to the Wall Street types, the firms that hire them are responding to Mr and Mrs America who now demand 10%+ returns where 5% was considered good a generation ago. Everyone wants to make a market killing. The funds with the best returns hire the most aggressive managers. "Professional Gamblers on Wall Street" didn't "destroy the economy," it was destroyed my Mr and Mrs America who dumped mutal fund "a" for mutual fund "b" to get a few % better return, all while buying a house that was several times pricier than what their income justified.

Income will always skew to the top. For example, if I am a manager of a casino-resort and do well I have far more bargaining power than the guy mopping the floor. If I am average I still have more bargaining power since I can still mop the floor but the floor mopper cannot run the resort. Between the 1950s and 1970s even no-skill jobs were able to get high wages in the USA. In the 1980s reality came. If you have no skills you do not get to make $40,000 a year. You can only be paid more than you produce. The CEO who produces millions or billions in profit thus has a higher wage then the guy selling $400 a day in concessions at Slots-A-Fun.

Income inequality is not a bad thing in and of itself. It is bad only when you are held down as a matter of birth (eg: India's caste System) vs held down by motivation as in the USA.

Quote: Nareed

Population problems are over-rated.

Population density can be a problem. See Mexico City. But a large population by itself is not a problem. consider America, what percentage of the land in the US is still empty? America could easily support well over a billion people.

I am glad that you brought up this point. The Census department made a projection for the millenium all the way to the year 2100. It was essentially an attention getting publication, because they freely admitted that projecting population a century into the future is nearly impossible to do with any reliability. The highest projection that they felt was reasonable was 1.2 billion in the year 2100.

Since this was an official government report, many citizen action groups promoted this number. The report did not compare this number to the population of China, but by the year 2100 the population of China will have certainly decayed down to some number well below 1.2 billion. The USA would be behind India as the world population leader.

I have noticed that Mexican cities are particularly good places for American widows on fixed incomes to live. It is possible to survive nicely without requiring your own car (something that is very difficult to do in America outside of NYC). You can rent a home and be able to eat in a small restaurant frequently. In America maintaining a car and a home can be very difficult to manage.

The latest projections has the rate of population change in Mexico lower than that of the USA by the year 2019 (less than a decade away).

Quote: pacomartin

I have noticed that Mexican cities are particularly good places for American widows on fixed incomes to live. It is possible to survive nicely without requiring your own car (something that is very difficult to do in America outside of NYC). You can rent a home and be able to eat in a small restaurant frequently.

Depends on the city. In mexico City it may be possible to get anywhere using public transportation, and it's cheap. but I wouldn't call it easy. If you want a description of Mex City's public transportation, including the subway, I'd call it "brutish." IN the city and suburbs, a car is a lot better.

Cheap food, yes, you can find it easily. Any number of small restaurants, particularly those close to office buildings, will offer a fixed price meal for about $3.50 to $5 US, usually with a choice of soup and main course, plus a serving of rice or pasta and often a small desert. this is a mid-day meal, BTW, not dinner.

As to rent, again it depends on where. Mexico City is hideously expensive, but you can find very good bargains in Toluca, Metepec, Puebla and Queretaro.

Quote: AZDuffman

People like to blame the CEO and "Wall Street" but that is not where the blame belongs. The CEO making $11MM a year is doing so because a Board of Directors felt he or she was worth it. Many times they are. Consider Ford. The Great-Grandson of the founder ascended into the CEO slot and esentially destroyed the company. The guy who replaced him has essentially saved Ford. Saved a multi-billion $$$ company. If I am a shareholder I am happy to pay him $11MM or much more.

As to the Wall Street types, the firms that hire them are responding to Mr and Mrs America who now demand 10%+ returns where 5% was considered good a generation ago. Everyone wants to make a market killing. The funds with the best returns hire the most aggressive managers. "Professional Gamblers on Wall Street" didn't "destroy the economy," it was destroyed my Mr and Mrs America who dumped mutal fund "a" for mutual fund "b" to get a few % better return, all while buying a house that was several times pricier than what their income justified.

Income will always skew to the top. For example, if I am a manager of a casino-resort and do well I have far more bargaining power than the guy mopping the floor. If I am average I still have more bargaining power since I can still mop the floor but the floor mopper cannot run the resort. Between the 1950s and 1970s even no-skill jobs were able to get high wages in the USA. In the 1980s reality came. If you have no skills you do not get to make $40,000 a year. You can only be paid more than you produce. The CEO who produces millions or billions in profit thus has a higher wage then the guy selling $400 a day in concessions at Slots-A-Fun.

Income inequality is not a bad thing in and of itself. It is bad only when you are held down as a matter of birth (eg: India's caste System) vs held down by motivation as in the USA.

Wrong. Wall Street is exactly where to place the blame. Even CEOs who steer companies into the ground make tens of millions of dollars, so you can't make the argument that CEO compensation is performance-based. It's greed-based. Even the guys who work in the Wall Street divisions that made all the terrible investments that brought our economy to the brink of collapse still got their bonuses. Bankrupt your country, get paid more.

AZ, you imply the only thing holding people back in the U.S. is "motivation," but the economy is becoming so warped, with astronomical wealth being concentrated among such tiny elite (many of whom aren't exactly like Carnegie and Ford, respectably employing thousands), that the obstacles go way beyond motivation. The truth is, we have a caste system in this country, or something close to it, because it's becoming more difficult to move up from your economic circumstances at birth. The divide between the haves and the have-nots is widening all the time.

This is just a guess, but I'm willing to bet you're a Baby Boomer or older. It's easy to extol the virtues of the free market when you're near retirement age and have lived most of your life in a country that still had a middle class. Well, I'm not a Boomer, and I have to live with the shitty economic climate started by Reagan, rescued (BRIEFLY) by Clinton, and then ruined again by Bush II. I'm not saying it's your generation's fault, I'm just sayin'. The view looks different from here.

Income equality is an interesting idea that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. As AZDuffman notes above most of the worlds richest people give large pieces (or in the case of Carnegie) all of their fortunes away. Even if they do buy 10 mansions around the world those buildings must be constructed by tradesman and be manned by staff year around creating many jobs.

I had this discussion with a friend who was whining about Bill Gates net worth and how unfair it was. It started me thinking and I attempted to find out what the average salary per year in the world would be if everyone made the same. My simplistic approach to this was take world total GDP, which is a very nebulous figure with little agreement by various sources, divided by the worlds population. I came up with a figure in the range of US$5000. Would be interested what number some you on this site come up with. I believe a figure in this range shows how unrealistic it is to try and bring 3rd world incomes up significantly unless the average person in the developed world is willing to take a major hit in their income.

These statistics from the public policy center Demos pretty much say it all:

Today the wealthiest 10% control 70% of America's wealth. In the last 35 years, the richest one percent of Americans witnessed a 62% drop in their federal tax rate, while their incomes have increased over 80%. Meanwhile, payroll taxes that directly affect middle and working class Americans has increased 25%, while their wages have remained stagnate. The average American has used debt to try to compensate for stagnate wages and increasing health care, education, energy, and other basic costs. Wall Street bought and sold this debt, making billions for themselves, but leaving the financial system of the country in ruins.

Wall Street got so carried away making massive profits off of the debt of average Americans that they lost sight of what was obvious: the already economically squeezed American did not have the means to pay the debt that was being sold as a commodity.

Quote: Nareed

Depends on the city. In mexico City it may be possible to get anywhere using public transportation, and it's cheap. but I wouldn't call it easy. If you want a description of Mex City's public transportation, including the subway, I'd call it "brutish." IN the city and suburbs, a car is a lot better.

Cheap food, yes, you can find it easily. Any number of small restaurants, particularly those close to office buildings, will offer a fixed price meal for about $3.50 to $5 US, usually with a choice of soup and main course, plus a serving of rice or pasta and often a small desert. this is a mid-day meal, BTW, not dinner.

As to rent, again it depends on where. Mexico City is hideously expensive, but you can find very good bargains in Toluca, Metepec, Puebla and Queretaro.

I was thinking of Oaxaca City, Guadalajara, Puebla, Queretaro or Veracruz. I know that DF is tough. Cuernavaca is very expensive as well. But if it wasn't for fear, it would be perfectly reasonable to have a 1/4 million gringos retire to Mexico every year. The American public has a terrific fear of crime in Mexico based mostly on crime in Sinaloa, Chihuahua, and BCN. They also have a massive fear of political unrest.

Most of Mexico feels perfectly safe to me, and frankly I have never been bothered in DF or Tijuana either.

Quote: nyuhoosier

Wrong. Wall Street is exactly where to place the blame. Even CEOs who steer companies into the ground make tens of millions of dollars, so you can't make the argument that CEO compensation is performance-based. It's greed-based. Even the guys who work in the Wall Street divisions that made all the terrible investments that brought our economy to the brink of collapse still got their bonuses. Bankrupt your country, get paid more. {/q}


Inequality does not matter, the whole pie keeps getting bigger. During Bush43's term the GDP of the USA went up by about the size of France. That is to say, we "built" another France in the USA. During Reagan/Bush41 the GDP of the SUA went up by about the size of (then) West Germany. We "built" another West Germany in the USA. Now, during these periods did we increase the population by a France or West Germany? Nope. You are better off. Someone else just did better than you did. There is a word for people who want what someone else has just because they got more--the word is GREEDY. Maybe you are too busy being greedy and upset to move up int he world? Plenty of people are. But the reality is the USA has the best possibility for mobility in the world.

Quote:

This is just a guess, but I'm willing to bet you're a Baby Boomer or older. It's easy to extol the virtues of the free market when you're near retirement age and have lived most of your life in a country that still had a middle class. Well, I'm not a Boomer, and I have to live with the shitty economic climate started by Reagan, rescued (BRIEFLY) by Clinton, and then ruined again by Bush II. I'm not saying it's your generation's fault, I'm just sayin'. The view looks different from here.

Nope, born in the middle of "generation x." I find I live in a country with a big middle class. If we don't have a big middle class please explain why there are so many more visitors to Las Vegas than teh 1960s and 70s; why do so many more people travel by plane (when I was a kid NO ONE did that unless they were "rich"); who bought all the new houses; why are there so many more two-car families; why so many TV's and other comforts in your home??????

As to your thinking of Reagan; et al vs Clinton I will say that when Reagan took over we had unemployment headed to 10% and to buy a house your mortgage was closer to 20% than to 10%. Reagan fixed all of that. Clinton fixed nothing and left behind an internet bubble (fueled by "greed?") I'll take more of Reagan and the Bushes anyday.

Quote: nyuhoosier

These statistics from the public policy center Demos pretty much say it all:

Today the wealthiest 10% control 70% of America's wealth. In the last 35 years, the richest one percent of Americans witnessed a 62% drop in their federal tax rate.

But the bottom 50% saw a decline in their federal tax rate of almost 100%. The bottom 50% pay almost nothing in federal taxes.

Quote: pacomartin

I was thinking of Oaxaca City, Guadalajara, Puebla, Queretaro or Veracruz.

I don't know Oaxaca, nor want to, but the weather's supposed to be atrocious in summer: hot and rainy. Not what I'd recommend for retirees.

The rest are ok. Queretaro gets a little too cold in winter, though.

Quote:

I know that DF is tough. Cuernavaca is very expensive as well.

Cuernavaca's economy is based on the summer homes and weekend pads of wealthy Defeños, plus maybe a few restorts.

Quote:

But if it wasn't for fear, it would be perfectly reasonable to have a 1/4 million gringos retire to Mexico every year. The American public has a terrific fear of crime in Mexico based mostly on crime in Sinaloa, Chihuahua, and BCN. They also have a massive fear of political unrest.

Most of Mexico feels perfectly safe to me, and frankly I have never been bothered in DF or Tijuana either.

I grew up here. I'm afraid of crime due to what I read in the local news and what I hear from people I know. Hell, I was robbed at gunpoint once, about four years ago.

There are things I don't do anymore, like go out late at night, park too far from my destination, walk through empty streets, etc.

On Mexico: My aunt was born there, but immigrated here in order to marry my US-born uncle. Her family is reasonably well off, has servants and owns a restaurant. They have told her not to visit, period. She has tried to send them money in the past or little trinkets (that aren't even worth anything) and it has NEVER arrived to them. Understand that I haven't done a lot of my own research, but I wouldn't think about living in Mexico. Whether or not this is the truth of the matter, I believe that it isn't an uncommon opinion of our neighbor to the south.

On CEO payment: Yes payment to these people is ridiculous, but Alex Rodriguez gets paid 25 million a year to play a mother fucking game. Shaq gets paid 21M for a lousy 12 ppg and 6.7 rebounds. What are you going to do, force athletes to get paid less? The reason they get paid this is because that's what the market will pay, because millions of people enjoy watching them. The money does make it all around, nobody is going bankrupt to pay these people ridiculous salaries. It's the EXACT same situation with CEO's, not everyone can run a fortune 500 company. The decisions that these people make and do affect millions if not billions. I'll end with this, imagine Apple without Steven Jobs? Yes I know he's badly sick, but he made the company what it is today. Now it employs tens of thousands of high-paid workers and provides us with entertainment. I hate Apple, but that's another discussion.

Quote: AZDuffman

Someone else just did better than you did. There is a word for people who want what someone else has just because they got more--the word is GREEDY. Maybe you are too busy being greedy and upset to move up int he world?.

I'm sorry, I think you're mistaking my views on income distribution, the economy, etc., as being reflective of some kind of personal failings or bitterness on my part. No, not so. I just think the system needs an overhaul. We have to find a way to reward work that matters, that has real social benefit (like that of teachers, firefighters, policemen, nurses) rather than letting so much of our GDP and wealth be sopped up by scumbags on Wall Street who play casino on their computers.

But seriously, if you have lived through the past few years, all the economic and environmental disasters ... and you still feel this way, I don't know what to say. Reagan taught people that deficit spending doesn't matter, that the government is THE ENEMY, and that tax cuts solve everything. We handed over the keys of our government to capitalists with zero sense of patriotism or social responsibility and what did we get? Enron, AIG, Goldman Sachs, oil spills, etc. Yeah, the system is working wonders all right.

[ We have to find a way to reward work that matters, that has real social benefit (like that of teachers, firefighters, policemen, nurses) rather than letting so much of our GDP and wealth be sopped up by scumbags on Wall Street who play casino on their computers.

RANT ALERT

Couldn't let your list of jobs that benefit people pass. That is a major problem with so many younger people now that they don't value a good honest days work no matter what the job is. The janitor that keeps your school clean and disease free has no social value? How about the tradesman that built the school? The company that gets the natural gas to the building that allows it to be used in the winter or the electricity that allows the air conditioning to work (for those of you in the south)? Everyones job is important, matters and 'PROVIDES SOCIAL BENEFIT'. Everyone that does an honest days work, no matter what their job is makes our society stronger and more efficient which allows us to better look after everyone including the less fortunate. Any freeloader who doesn't earn their wages wether they are slinging burgers or the CEO of a large company is a drain on society.

END OF RANT

Quote:

We have to find a way to reward work that matters, that has real social benefit

I'm not sure I agree with you ...or at least I would put it more like this. One of the problems with large corporate entities is they may have got to their position by, let's say, making the better widjit. Nothing wrong with that.

However, sometimes (and far too often I'd say) when they become wealthy, their resources are used to game the system.

Instead of product or production improvement, they maintain their position through other means. Lobbying for instance. Or fighting or ignoring safety requirements when it's cheaper to do business that way.

The tobacco companies were really successful at stalling their demise in the U.S. for a long long time. They funded research which they could control to say what they wanted basically to counter other research. They lobbied. They used the legal system to their advantage to stall changes.

This is not ideas of producing a better product, but survival by whatever means allowed using large amounts of wealth.

A odd bit of info about a currently troubled industry giant.

British Petroleum has an operating well further out in the gulf (and deeper) named "Atlantis"

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

After a failed attempt to invade Athens, Atlantis sank into the ocean "in a single day and night of misfortune".

Hmmm.

Quote: kenarman

[Couldn't let your list of jobs that benefit people pass. That is a major problem with so many younger people now that they don't value a good honest days work no matter what the job is. The janitor that keeps your school clean and disease free has no social value? How about the tradesman that built the school? The company that gets the natural gas to the building that allows it to be used in the winter or the electricity that allows the air conditioning to work (for those of you in the south)?

Wow, did you really think my list was exhaustive? Talk about missing the point. The examples you cite do indeed have value, and who would argue against that? Straw men on the forum are multiplying! Once again, my point is that Wall Street types provide little social benefit relative to their compensation: they produce nothing, their schemes result in little employment, and yet they're involved in high-risk gambling that is ultimately subsidized and guaranteed by the American taxpayer. (By the way, I'm all for gambling when it doesn't involve my tax dollars and my country's economic stability.)

Quote: nyuhoosier

Straw men on the forum are multiplying!

I am curious how you mean the term straw men. Traditionally in debates it mean an argument that you propose knowing that it is very easy to take apart. It gets the debate going. For instance the title I chose for this thread was a deliberate straw man. I know that Hungary is not Heaven on Earth. I was using it to highlight a point. Many of the things that people say they don't like are a growing America, a diversified America, and the growing income and wealth spread. I just thought it would help to look at countries that don't have those social phenomena.


Many times in work I find that people misuse the term. They make a genuine proposal, and then when everyone points out all the fallacies they call it a straw man proposal. But the proposal was sincere.

It sounds like you are using the phrase to describe stupid arguments, almost as fragile as straw.

Quote: nyuhoosier

I'm sorry, I think you're mistaking my views on income distribution, the economy, etc., as being reflective of some kind of personal failings or bitterness on my part. No, not so. I just think the system needs an overhaul. We have to find a way to reward work that matters, that has real social benefit (like that of teachers, firefighters, policemen, nurses) rather than letting so much of our GDP and wealth be sopped up by scumbags on Wall Street who play casino on their computers.

I am not mistaking your views at all, your views are socialism/marxism. BTW: Teachers, firefighters, policemen, and nurses all make above-average wages in the USA so I am not sure why you are upset. The system works fine as each person distributes their resources on what they value and then you take that over all of the economy and society and what is valued gets the resources.

Quote:

But seriously, if you have lived through the past few years, all the economic and environmental disasters ... and you still feel this way, I don't know what to say. Reagan taught people that deficit spending doesn't matter, that the government is THE ENEMY, and that tax cuts solve everything. We handed over the keys of our government to capitalists with zero sense of patriotism or social responsibility and what did we get? Enron, AIG, Goldman Sachs, oil spills, etc. Yeah, the system is working wonders all right.

And Obama seems to have learned the lesson on seficit spending well since he is making deficits higher than anyone yet passing new trillion-dollar entitlements. It is a complicated thing, but small and managable deficits of 1-3% of GDP are needed to avoid recessions. (Note that the two times after we lowered the national debt in a big way we had major slowdowns--after Jackson and Clinton.)

The system IS working wonders since 1980 we have had Apple; Microsoft; average person in a house much larger; better cars; better and cheaper EVERYTHING; more proven oil reserves today than in 1973 DESPITE pumping every drop known to exist in 1973; ability to do so much so much faster online; the list goes on. The system works fine, but recessions happen and are needed to weed out weaker companies and reallocate resources by the market. What we can't do is hand over the keys to government just because unemployent goes over the 6% or less average since Reagan.

One shouldn't be bitter--the USA has the most opportunity for anyone anywhere in the world. It just isn't handed to you.

Quote:

Wow, did you really think my list was exhaustive? Talk about missing the point. The examples you cite do indeed have value, and who would argue against that? Straw men on the forum are multiplying! Once again, my point is that Wall Street types provide little social benefit relative to their compensation: they produce nothing, their schemes result in little employment, and yet they're involved in high-risk gambling that is ultimately subsidized and guaranteed by the American taxpayer. (By the way, I'm all for gambling when it doesn't involve my tax dollars and my country's economic stability.)

I think you need to learn more about Wall Street and what it is. Wall Street provides capital for corporations to expand; they provide the liquid markets for farmers,fishermen, oilmen, lumberjacks, etc to sell their production to a guaranteed market; they provide the market for finance for so many things. This is plenty of "value" to me. Perhaps you would prefer to live in poverty but without Wall Street as in say Haiti?

Quote: pacomartin

I am curious how you mean the term straw men

A straw man argument is one that ignores the opponent's true position and instead tries to refute points that are easier to knock down. I never argued that janitors and the like have no social value, and I never argued that CEOs shouldn't make more than the people who mop floors. Those are straw men, by definition.

Also, the charge of marxism is pejorative and just laughable. People like me who favor minor, incremental adjustments to regulations and tax policies are called socialists and, curiously, Nazis (hard to be both!) all the time. This is why our politics is so toxic, and why our representatives in D.C. can't get anything done.

I did a search and I see that your definition is the more common one of straw man. I like the definition. It is by far the most common way that people make arguments.

Quote: nyuhoosier

Also, the charge of marxism is pejorative and just laughable. People like me who favor minor, incremental adjustments to regulations and tax policies are called socialists and, curiously, Nazis (hard to be both!) all the time. This is why our politics is so toxic, and why our representatives in D.C. can't get anything done.

Why is it "hard to be both?"

I want to make it clear that I am not calling anyone names. People that throw around names like NAZI or RACIST resort to this when they have no rational argument to refute the facts being presented in a discussion.

That being said, NAZIS were the National Socialist Party that were strong advocates of many of the same economic policies that you are backing. They were strong anti-capitalists that believed in wage controls and extensive government controls on private business. That is why comparisons are made. Please research this. You will be able to make a much stronger argument for your views when you understand the real definitions of Marxism and Socialism.

Quote: nyuhoosier

Quote: pacomartin

I am curious how you mean the term straw men

A straw man argument is one that ignores the opponent's true position and instead tries to refute points that are easier to knock down. I never argued that janitors and the like have no social value, and I never argued that CEOs shouldn't make more than the people who mop floors. Those are straw men, by definition.

Also, the charge of marxism is pejorative and just laughable. People like me who favor minor, incremental adjustments to regulations and tax policies are called socialists and, curiously, Nazis (hard to be both!) all the time. This is why our politics is so toxic, and why our representatives in D.C. can't get anything done.

I wasn't making an argument for or against the CEO salaries or the value of wall street. That is a very devisive and and difficult debate which I am glad to see continued on this forum. I was specifically making a comment on what occupations obviously first came to mind for you that had social value which I completely disagreed with. By including some occupations in such a list you obviously have some legitimate occupations that you don't feel have any social value and that is the position I am against.

As you are a self confessed socialist I am reminded of something my father told me when I was a young left leaning university student. "If you are not a socialist when you are 20 you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you are 40 you have no brain". Since I am sure you are not yet 40 you're off the hook.

Quote: AZDuffman

Wall Street provides capital for corporations to expand

The main purpose of the bailout was to prop up Wall Street banks so they could continue to lend. It has been widely reported that they haven't held up their end of the bargain, and that lending is at an all time low. You seem to be fine with the status quo on Wall St., with massive government bailouts and with an exploitative financial sector. I am not fine with it.

Quote: timberjim

Why is it "hard to be both?"

I want to make it clear that I am not calling anyone names. People that throw around names like NAZI or RACIST resort to this when they have no rational argument to refute the facts being presented in a discussion.

That being said, NAZIS were the National Socialist Party that were strong advocates of many of the same economic policies that you are backing. They were strong anti-capitalists that believed in wage controls and extensive government controls on private business. That is why comparisons are made. Please research this. You will be able to make a much stronger argument for your views when you understand the real definitions of Marxism and Socialism.

I don't need to research it. Any freshman-level political science textbook will tell you that socialism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Although parallels can be drawn, they are in effect opposite ideologies. Socialism advocates vesting wealth and power in the community (namely the working class) while fascism calls for vesting power over capital means in the government. National Socialist Party was something of a misnomer.

Quote: kenarman

As you are a self confessed socialist

Actually I just made the point that I'm not a socialist. I resent the charge. I have views that are libertarian, views that are liberal, views that are conservative. Labels are silly and reductive anyway.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-03/hungarian-forint-drops-most-in-world-as-fidesz-spooks-markets.html

(Summed up)

The Hungarian currency is doing bad against the fricken Euro, which is having a record-bad year. The "conservatives" came in first, by far, with a 68% lead. From the looks of it they're the most fiscally conservative party, the politics in Hungary are very odd and can't be well defined in a look at their major parties and current MP numbers. Euro politics are really interesting, before the last election in Germany the two major parties, CDU and SDP (by name, conservative an liberal respectively) were in a coalition.

Quote: nyuhoosier

The main purpose of the bailout was to prop up Wall Street banks so they could continue to lend. It has been widely reported that they haven't held up their end of the bargain, and that lending is at an all time low. You seem to be fine with the status quo on Wall St., with massive government bailouts and with an exploitative financial sector. I am not fine with it.

The thing is businesses are not wanting to borrow right now. We just had socialized medicine we didn't want rammed down our throats and that raises costs for business. Obama also wants his "cap-and-tax" plan for global warming that is not being caused my man; that raises costs. They want a "card check" plan to make it easier for workers to unionize; which would raise costs. This administration is regulation happy; which raises costs.

Given all of that as well as even more of the same is it any wonder no one wants to borrow to open or expand a business and similarly people don't want to lend for the same reasons?

BTW: The democrats are the biggest recipient of Wall Street Campaign Donations. Why I have no idea, maybe because Obama bails out everyone?(cars, finance, state governments.......)

Quote: AZDuffman

The thing is businesses are not wanting to borrow right now.

LOL. Businesses, especially small businesses, have to borrow continuously to keep their doors open.

Quote: AZDuffman

We just had socialized medicine we didn't want rammed down our throats

Thank you for the Fox News talking point. In reality, polls show a majority of Americans favor the actual provisions of the health reform bill. The independent and historically conservative GAO shows a 10-year deficit reduction as a result of the health care bill. When you get to be 55 and you are laid off from your job, you'll be thanking your lucky stars to have access to affordable health care for the 10 years you'll have to wait to get Medicare.

Quote: AZDuffman

global warming that is not being caused my man

LOL

Quote: AZDuffman

They want a "card check" plan to make it easier for workers to unionize; which would raise costs.

Wait, aren't you a casino dealer? You of all people should know the unions are largely responsible for the respectable wages casino workers earn. In fact, Vegas is one of the few places where you can get a low-skill job without a college degree and be part of the middle class. In most other places, service workers are relegated to a miserable existence as part of the working poor.

Quote: AZDuffman

BTW: The democrats are the biggest recipient of Wall Street Campaign Donations.

It that is true, and I'm not even sure it is, it's probably because the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the presidency. Do you have a source?

The administration is not "regulation happy," it is trying to restore some balance and common sense. Look what the lack of regulation hath wrought: Madoff, Enron, oil spills, lead in toys, financial implosions and bailouts. You act like the Obama administration just loved bailing out these unregulated banks (actually it was Bush who engineered the largest bank bailout, but OK). With adequate regulation, the bailouts would never have happened. You can't be opposed to bailouts and FOR less regulation. You can't be FOR tax cuts for the rich and AGAINST deficit spending. It's about time you tea partiers got called on your blatant ignorance and hypocrisy.

Quote: nyuhoosier

It's about time you tea partiers got called on your blatant ignorance and hypocrisy.

This is a very informative and fun forum. Please don't ruin it by calling people names simply because they disagree with your point of view. Present your facts and back them up.

I called him a name?

I could have said teabagger but I didn't. Please understand that two people accused me of being a socialist.

I do agree that we should preserve the collegiality of this forum, which is why I'm done with this thread.

Speaking of Hungary

They are considering building the first Vegas style casino in Eastern Europe at the intersection of Hungary, Austria, and Slovakia. Easy to get to from the capitals of all three countries.
See Hard Rock Hungary in Euro Vegas.

Up North at Wendover NV they have been importing at U.S. Government supsidised trianing(our tax money) expense for the last 2 years Western Russians to learn the Casino business for Moscow Casinos. The most beatiful women you can imagine. All fluent in English. The Casino pays half their training expense(salary) for 90 days and the U.S Gov pays the other half of their salary. Needless to say they have axed the regular, older dealers. At first they just trained as dealers, last month they started training as Pit Boss's and Casino Hosts. Going tomorrow, wish me luck at the games. I gave up trying with the young women, they train and head back. Or that is what we assume.

My next door neighbor in Washington DC was hopelessly addicted to Eastern European Women. He would marry one, and they would eventually divorce him, and then he would fly over and marry another. He never seemed to figure it out. He was just hopelessly romantic.

yep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!