/lit/ - Literature

COMMUNISM IS BAD, IF YOU AREN'T RICH, WORK HARDER.

etc, etc, etc.

social mobility lol

and the rich keep paying less taxes

**oh well**

its not even the top 1% anymore
its the top 1/10th of the 1%

amerifags are too stupid to realize that they are getting raped lol

>mfw

>>1794388
Why can they put the top 1% of the top 1%

that guy who said europe was worse

LMAO

amerifags arent real men

>America

>>1794394
if you look closely the blue line represents the top 0.0001, yellow 0.001, red 0.01 (1%)

in the past you got EVEN BIGGER tax cuts if you were blue over yellow, now they both get the same tax cuts, still better then red, (which is better then all else)

Still better than europe our army is still the best you eurofags can fuck off

FREEDUM ANT FREE OP U COMMIE LOSER
WE GOTTA KEEP THE GOVERNMENT SMALL SO IT PROTECTS US FROM TERRURISTS AND KEEPING A GOVERNMENT SMALL ISNT CHEAP

Im in the top 1% and my life is great so why should I care?

>>1794421
why do you need a small government to keep the terrorists away?

also, why do you need to exploit the poor again?

>>1794418
You think good army = good state? what are you, a closet homo? Lots of strapping young men in uniforms is what makes you proud to be American...

The author argues that actions of well-off people, such as refusal to make workplaces safe, refusal to curtail deadly pollution, promotion of unnecessary surgery, and prescriptions for unnecessary drugs, cause occupational and environmental hazards to innocent members of the public and produce just as much death, destruction, and financial loss as so-called crimes of the poor.

I am happy when people expose their retardation on the back cover of their book.

>>1794435
no it means we can and will kick your asses in a war. sort of like when europe was all "baww dont do into iraq" and we fucking did anyway lol.

if you arent in the top 1% of american earners, you're pretty much screwed

>>1794442
>yfw

Also, since you are pro-rich, would you care to justify ANY of the graphs presented ITT?

Didn't think so faggot.

OP you are a faggot,

WTF do you expect a normal person to do about it?

Protest? Revolution? I cant see that happening, most americans are too fucking stupid or fat.

All I can do is suck it up stay fit and keep fucking bitches on my $42k a year salary.

You litfags suck Im staying on /fit in future

>mfw

>>1794445
Power ebbs and flows - the worse you treat those who are at the bottom the more it will flow away...

Americans might think they have it made but when their grand-son is a loser and their grand-daughter is putting out for Chinese businessmen, I think you'll all see it differently. Hell, the way the Republicans are going, you might get cuckolded by generation early. Still, abortion will be prohibited, so it will all be worth it...

>Power ebbs and flows
not in my lifetime buddy, and who knows maybe we will take over the whole world one day - LOL

>Americans might think they have it made but when their grand-son is a loser and their grand-daughter is putting out for Chinese businessmen
lol those slanty eyed fuckers? give me a break

>the way the Republicans are going, you might get cuckolded by generation early
I dont think you know what cuckolding means eurofag

>abortion will be prohibited

how'd you work that one out retard?

op here, found link that ay be of interest

http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn

even if the gap between rich and poor is greater, the poor in the world are still richer, freer, safer, and have more opportunity than any time in history. so shut the fuck up OP

would you rather be a serf farming land for some shitty lord? to when black people and women had basically no rights? how about to vietnam when there was a motherfucking draft or during the red scare and there were chances for all of us to die by nuclear bomb?

the world is a better place now than it has ever been and its going to get better, even if america loses its top spot

>would you rather be a serf farming land for some shitty lord? to when black people and women had basically no rights?

lol americans are fatass in the mind as well as the body

>historical progression of civil rights
>the economic climate

these topics are DIFFERENT, not the SAME, barely even related you fuckhead.

>>1794467
tru.
>>1794418
thats the problem. it would be such a bitch for americans to learn how to revolution. All the fucking riot technology and super badass weapons we let them make over time. one of the biggest fuck ups the american public has allowed.

>>1794508
The US army would never turn its weapons on its own people.

ITT: marxist faggots

OP here, from reading the responses it looks like you americans really do like to take it up the butt from the elite.

tl;dr: americans are confirmed lovers of anal rape

Oh /lit/ your economic illiteracy is saddening.

>mfw presenting income inequality as a problem without reasonable explanatory variables. Lrn2econometrics.

Most economists agree that the rising income gap in the United States is largely due to an increasing roll of technology in our economy. As technology has become more widespread, it has enabled some professions to function more efficiently, and it has replaced others. Those that it has replaced are mainly those of the so-called 'middle-class:' things like factory managers and workers, distribution managers, mid-level managers at various companies. This puts downward pressure on wages of those who are not highly skilled and do not have prospects for advancement. At the same time, technology increases the earning prospects of high skilled workers (think doctors and lawyers) because a) a computer can't do their job and b) a computer actually makes them able to see more clients and therefore increase their income prospects.

Silly Europeans, serious economics is for adults. How's the Euro doing? Last time I checked, bond markets were going crazy because of the prospect of debt defaults. How's that working out for you?

It's not my fault if the bottom 99% of America don't want money as much as me.

>>1794565
>you don't know about economics
>you don't understand econometrics
>most economists
The post of an idiot.

>>1794579
>>1794579

>The post of someone that has no counter argument.

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

>>1794585
You can't give a counter argument, including a false one like ad-hominem, if there is no argument and only empty rhetoric.

>>1794565
>silly eurofags "technology" is the raison we are getting raped by the financial elite

>mfw I didnt give a fuck about the particular dildo the clever elite were fucking you with

>>1794589

Oh rly? Do MIT journal editors also only rely on rhetoric? I could give you 10 different scholarly articles that all say the same thing.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003355300554827

"[this paper] argues that an increase in the rate of technological progress raises the return to ability and simultaneously generates an increase in wage inequality between and within groups of skilled and unskilled workers, an increase in average wages of skilled workers, a temporary decline in average wages of unskilled workers, an increase in education, and a productivity transitory slowdown."

>>1794595
I like your style hombre

>>1794602
And none criticizing those findings eh?

Pointing to the results of n number of papers does nothing, you need to show some concrete reasoning.

>>1794602
technological implementation is always going to be taken up by the few and ambitious. it's not a problem with technology, but basic structures of human organization. these structures can be ameliorated, but ONLY with effort. there is no magical bullet of "taking away property" etc. it's hard wrk, social progress, and that's okay.

>>1794611
>>1794611

You keep saying these words and I'm not sure that you know what they mean. Anyone that has taken an intermediate macroeconomics course would know of the theories that I am citing. You seem content to sit back and pick apart argument while providing none of your own. Maybe you could provide some 'concrete reasoning' of your own?

the proper conclusion from the technology thing is that in order for technology to serve society and progress you need better social institutions and education etc as well. i think this is a reasonable justification for collective effort i.e. socialism.

>>1794613
>>1794613
>taking away property

lol americans are so dumb lol. no wonder the elite rape you daily with 12" didloes.

most countires just use taxation see >>1794401

>>1794621
>>1794621

first off, thank you for responding with a rational argument. I think that we both agree that the fundamental problem underpinning all of this is disparities in education. the point I was making was that observed increased income inequality has been directly linked to the rise of technology since the late 70's. If we are to fix income inequality, a good start would be to fix the completely broken education system. How to do that... I have no idea.

>>1794633
calm down jeez

>>1794637
>Non-sequitur

>>1794640
do you realize that you are a moron yet?

>>1794374
>How can some people just sit back and take it in the butt and smile?

Americans don't really recognize class culturally. They're taught to see poor (pretty much just homeless people), middle class (culturally Americans from just over the poverty line to those with 6 figure household incomes consider themselves middle class) and rich (which everyone who isn't rich aspires to be)

Combine this with economic conservatives managing to tie their economic policy to religion. guns, and other issues important in thinly populated rural states (which control more of the electoral college per individual vote than the more densely populated highly urbanized states) and you have a recipe for people to vote for politicians who are not in their best interest.

>>1794648
i told you to calm down. was only addressing the ideological boogieman of american rightwing ideologues, not an actual policy solution

>>1794645
>>1794645

PROTIP:

>return to ability and simultaneously generates an increase in wage inequality between and within groups of skilled and unskilled workers

the words "ability," "skilled," and "unskilled" all refer to levels of education.

you fool.

>>1794654
stay out of economics threads in future as you have a below average iq and contribute nothing more than a 10 year old could.

>>1794649
Interesting, so you are saying that they are stupid enough to believe in "the american dream."

And the fact no one realizes you will never be able to vote these changes in.

>>1794656
You think if everyone was a skilled worker it'd be problems solved?

DURRRR

>>1794656
you'd be disappointed to know that students in the us are taught that value of education should be understood as signaling and not acquisition of productive skills.

>>1794674
>the problem of inequality would not be solved if all were equal

>mfw

>>1794674
>>1794674

I can categorically say that if everyone in this country had a college degree, than everyone would be much better off and that income inequality would not be nearly the problem that it is. Do you think any differently? If you do, you are an idiot.

>>1794668
That's part of it. It's combined with the cultural divide between the rural agrarian areas of the country and our urban centers, as well as by the fact that our election system mathematically favors a two party system making it difficult to elect politicians with diverse views.

>>1794684
You're understanding of equality is idiotic in that case.

>students in the us are taught that value of education should be understood as signaling and not acquisition of productive skills.

O RLY? When did they put this in the curriculum?

And in which class would that be taught?

>>1794689
If everyone in the country had a college degree it's value would be equivalent to that of a high school diploma.

Just because the super rich make fucktons of money doesn't mean I don't have a decent quality of life and am generally having a good time living here in America.

It doesn't effect me. Just because they're super super rich compared to me doesn't mean I'm poor.

>>1794691
>>1794691

You are saying that you think that an increase in economic inequality would not lead to an increase in social equality? Jesus you are wrong. Nail, meet coffin.

>>1794696
One can not use a perspective within the system and expect it not to be biased. In this case, you know full well the curriculum is not going to admit to merely giving people the appearance of education.

>>1794705
No. What do you think equality means? Is it that I should gain the same resources and opportunities as you, or is it that I should have access to them?

>>1794697
>>1794697

No. If everyone had a college degree, there would be more skilled workers available to provide high-end services. An increase in supply of those services means that those services would be much cheaper. People may be getting paid less, but formerly expensive services (financial, legal, medical, consulting, business management etc), would be very cheap, and every company that used these services would make cheaper products. This means that they are also more competitive on international markets as well. Everyone benefits. You clearly have no formal background in economics. This is getting painful.

>>1794690
>>1794690
>mathematically selects

those clever clever swines

>>1794722
>You clearly have no formal background in economics.
You could clearly use your background as toilet paper for what it's worth. You cannot have an economy functioning only with high end services. On top of that, all services have a saturation point.

I mean, there's so much wrong in that post. I'll just point out that you duurrred your way around the concept of lag as well.

>>1794706
>>1794706
Thats the exact opposite of what ♥ !Rrxa7zePwI was saying so I wonder who's right...

Oh wait, no I don't.

>>1794722
Are you implying that everyone is capable of the same level of educational achievement? We could have a greater portion of the population as college graduates, we could have effective vocational education for the people who can't complete college, we could teach more valuable skills in our high schools... but if everyone in the country had achieved a college degree it would represent nothing at all since the bar would have to be set to the lowest abilities in the group.

>the cultural divide between the rural agrarian areas of the country and our urban centers, as well as by the fact that our election system mathematically favors a two party system making it difficult to elect politicians with diverse views.

Why cant everyone get togeher on important issues?? Like not getting raped by the top 1%?

>mfw everybody in this thread

>>1794741
It's not on the same subject, though it supports her.
>students in the us are taught that value of education should be understood as signaling and not acquisition of productive skills.
>signaling and not acquisition of productive skills
>not acquisition of productive skills
Why would a curriculum admit, in a sense, to this?

lol i can imagine op sitting at his parents house with no job demanding that rich people give him more money because he read this shitty book

hey bud, go outside, the world is your oyster

the tripfag said : "students in the us are taught that value of education should be understood as signaling and not acquisition of productive skills."

which is the opposite of what your saying. tripfag has now dropped his trip from butthurt lol

nope op is probably a eurofag who really wonders how americans can be so stupid

>>1794696
pay and performance analysis. it's not a totalizing theory of course but just a fun anecdote.

"hey guys you really like big dicks huh? I could never take this up the ass erry day."

>>1794748
>Why cant everyone get togeher on important issues?? Like not getting raped by the top 1%?

Social dynamics. People in America are not taught to identify as being part of a class (well old money rich are, but they hardly count) so non-class conflicts take precedence.

>>1794754
well it is just based on asymmetric information in the labor market. the analysis is valid under some conditions, not under some others. a degree in the humanities from top tier schools is mostly a signal.

>>1794784
Ít's notoriously difficult to measure performance.

>76 posts and 23 image replies omitted.

wtf? never change /lit/

>>1794805
yea which is why credentials even like experience are understood as signaling etc for a performance measurement skeptic who nevertheless want to explain the valuation of those 'measurements' as rational.

>>1794809
*something like work experience

>>1794797
All I'm saying is while that may or may not be true, the evidence will never be gleaned from the explicitly from the top tier school, that is they're never going to admit that you get the same skills regardless of where you go, and that the real difference is just the prestige of the name

>>1794784
♥ !Rrxa7zePwI went to such a crappy college that they told him his degree was an example of "signalling."

In my game theory class at an actual college they would not use 'that' example because we would all be too smart not to take it as an insult.

>mfw the college professor trolled you to your face and you didnt even realize it

>>1794795
>mfw why does the word "class" come into this?
>mfw "top 1%" is still a word
>mfw call it whatever you want
>mfw make up a word if you have to

>mfw I'm poor as fuck and probably happier than the vast majority of top 1%ers

>mf also w the same people who bitch about our material wealth based society also bitch about the differences in material wealth in the same breath, instead of advocating non-material based wealth

>no face because conflicting emotions

>>1794822
>In my game theory class at an actual college
>thinks game theory is impressive
>thinks college is impressive

>>1794822
i think we were honest enough with ourselves to accept self irony. i don't see why you are so insecure

>>1794841
btw you only learn this stuff if your goal is some kind of managerial position that SELECTS for talent instead of get selected. so w/e. peons need not apply is the proper "reading" of it if you really want to go down that road.

>>1794841
i dont see why you are so egotistical that you cant accept that you have an iq of 80 max

>>1794839

>wealth doesnt make you happy so let others take all yours.

good argument.

>>1794846
when you've solved the central problem of philosophy i guess you deserve to be smug for a while before the next project.

>>1794841
>i think we were honest enough with ourselves to accept we are stupid

Oh I see now

>>1794852
Why not? Why fret and waste so much energy over something I literally do not give a shit about? Makes no sense to me.

>>1794854
What is your solution? Philofag here.

>>1794860
principle of the matter

>>1794856
look education, or at least a degree, as signaling is a major topic i don't know why you are surprised or reacting this strongly. this does not apply at the lower levels but for the self selecting, prestige institutions i think there is something to be said for it.

>>1794863
i solve all self reference problems by introducing a proper understanding of levels and their content, most importantly the direct, naive level. it's too complicated to lay out here, but i can give illustrations.

>>1794872
Examples would be good. Have you brought your solution to anyone? Just curious if you plan on publishing or not.

Please be gentle. I mainly study philosophy of the mind, and while Jaegwon Kim is a bitch to read/understand at times, it doesn't grant me expert knowledge of other philosophical subjects.

>>1794866
you repeatedly change your story bro

you;re making tripfags look retarded

>>1794880
yea i'm going to publish it. it's a bitch to write though because it requires activity other than philosophizing.

in the philosophy of mind, the hard problem of consc. can be understood as a confusion about consciousness as reprsentation and consciousness-as-it-is. the human capacity for self representation is distinct, but it does not pose paradox. the solution is always there, people just do not know why they must accept the non-paradox route of understanding.

>>1794809
Experience in terms of years on the job haven't had any real sway, at least within the corporate system, since the 70s. The only examples I can think of where it's been useful have been cases where companies have specifically aimed at a certain skill set in an area, but have avoided traditional industry areas due to bad practice.

Concrete example, Nissan's manufacturing plant in the UK was set up in the traditional ship building town of Sunderland since the ship building industry had waned and the welding/manufacture skills had some crossover (so good semi-skilled labour). They purposefully avoided traditional car manufacturing areas like Coventry due to poor habits of previous factory workers in the car industry (poor skilled labour).

>>1794892
how am i changing the story. you should learn reading.

>>1794895
yea the examples we used were mostly investment banking recruiting practices which was :fitting:

>>1794894
What conclusion follows from this interpretation? Physicalism or dualism?

>>1794894
reading consciousness as an object vs "experiencing it" is the problem. the reductionist wants to kill the former, but then some guys think the object is necessary to preserve the latter in some way. i'm showing why they shouldn't argue like this.

>>1794865
pic related, its your mentality

The hilariously tragic irony is that the kid with two sodas will spend his whole, short life as a miserable diabetic while the crying kid will live a long and healthy life.

Or something like that.

>>1794902
absolute physicalism, but gives a pass for the ragmatic/expressive dimensions of 'folk psychology'. [which incidentally includes normative uses of "nature" itself. ] the bracketed is a live thought at the moment, i think it might just be better to say that physics is physics, metaphysics is just for fun.

>>1794897
>you'd be disappointed to know that students in the us are taught that value of education should be understood as signaling and not acquisition of productive skills.
>a degree in the humanities from top tier schools is mostly a signal.
>yea which is why credentials even like experience are understood as signaling etc for a performance measurement skeptic who nevertheless want to explain the valuation of those 'measurements' as rational.
>look education, or at least a degree, as signaling is a major topic

>mfw you just heard that word and thought you knew what it meant, never realizing that you didn;t

>>1794911
*pragmatic

because you know, looking at other people as "people" may be useful, or simply hardwired. gotta accept that and live with it, but maximize philosophy's progressive/critical potential as well.

>>1794911
I've been supporting absolute physicalism for a while, but I was shocked when Kim, who single-handedly championed it, softened his stance on it.

I wonder if it's his old age.

>>1794917
the first one of these was meant as a kind of joke/exaggeration. don't be too serious.

>>1794919
yea putnam too. can't give up on it! gotta be brave, courageous etc. i think these guys need a bit of leap of faith, trust in your own body moment.

>>1794924
What are your feelings on supervenience?

>>1794936
using a heavy hammer to fit a square peg into a round hole isn't doing you any good.

take the sorites problem for example, why don't people accept that people evolved different but parallel models of the world and which one we use is an automatic switching action by the brain just because we are built so great by nature. supervenience, way too violent.

>>1794948
pile and particles being the models.

>>1794948
You need to spend more time studying English if you want to post here.

ITT: Trolls, anecdotes, and assholes

>>1794908
>implying rich peoples life expectancy isnt higher

>>1794963
no anecdotes just gay tripfags

>>1794948
But isn't body-mind supervenience, and even universal supervenience, an undeniable truth if absolute physicalism is true?

If two universes are the same physically, they must be the same mentally if absolute physicalism is true.

>>1794960
No he doesn't. He recently solved the hardest problem in philosophy.

>>1794977
yeah but your hammer is too heavy son

>>1794977
>If two universes are the same physically, they must be the same mentally if absolute physicalism is true.
yes, but when you think mentally is a thing in the world at all then that's the start of the mistake.

the hard part is showing why this is so and why it is still okay to "understand ourselves as minds and agents etc etc"

if you want to call me anything call me an absolute compatibilist/pragmatist

>>1794998
>mfw the philosophical genius of our time talks like hes a complete retard

>>1795017
would you rather hear jargon or something

>>1795030
no, but it sounds like you're saying that you wrote a paper that solve a big philosophical argument. But all you claim to have done is provided an argument that the existence of conciousness is not a paradox.

part of this post not allowed to be posted don't know why.

http://pastebin.com/e5EP8TiW

>>1795030
How many years have you been studying English, Onion?

Do you currently have a teacher? Do you need one?

>>1795046
showing that for example the HPC is a confusion is indeed a solution.

>>1795056
look i had a 800 sat verbal and 172 lsat without studying so don't give me that crap.

>>1795055

>SYNTAX: NONE

pastebin knows you too well

>>1794998
I suppose I agree.

Though I think epiphenomenalism, which is what Kim now supports, has some ground for argument.

>>1795069
well, it is okay. however, when you believe that your 'sensations' are epiphenomenal, is that not a distinct kind of neural activity in itself? at that level, we are just arguing over what is the best way to go forward _creatively_ rather than having it as a problem of matter of fact.

>>1795065
too hard for you no problem young grasshoppa

>>1795084
It is a neural, physical activity. However, this doesn't violate epiphenomenalism. It's only my sensational reaction to that thought that is epiphenomenal.

It's worth mentioning that science currently does seem to support epiphenomenalism over straight physicalism.

>>1795069
hard physicalism, epi, dualism, idealism etc are on a spectrum and distanced from each other as seemingly metaphysical problems of mind, a disagreement about the 'nature' of mind. i want to show that these guys are talking about different things.

You guys. <3

>>1795124
Elaborate. I think some are on a spectrum and some are different things entirely.

Epiphenomenalism doesn't really violate physicalism, so I consider it part of a spectrum.

However, once you start taking non-physical stances on mental states, I agree you're in another category entirely.

>>1795157
epiphenomenalism is about preserving causal closure but also preserving sincerity of mental content, so to speak. i still think it's not a perfect way to go about it, or at any rate, it needs to be complemented by an understanding of mental representation's role in directing people's behavior. causality isn't my strong point though.

From SEP
Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events.

again, mental states are seen as in the same causal space, so to speak, as physical events. i'm questioning the need to put them in the same space.

>>1795202
No, I know where you're coming from. You're saying there's no necessary distinction between mental and physical.

However, while this works, there's really no reason to accept it over something like epiphenomenalism which says that mental states do exist, but are birthed from physical states.

They both have the same practical consequences, but they do have important differences.

>>1795215
well, i think "mental states" is a kind of philosophical construction that when constructed, had no clear corresponding place in the world, or indeed, no clear objecthood. it has only a distinct performance. the disagreement with epiphenomenalism isn't so much over the causal ineffectiveness of mental states when they are understood by the epiphenomenalist. yes, when viewed as mental objects, they are indeed causally ineffective upon the physical world and superceded by physical causes. however, i think if you go this far, then you should just go all the way to full physicalism, which offers defense against objects to epiphenomenalism.

it's quite hard to pin down the problem with epiphenomenalism for me, haven't studied it well enough yet.

>>1795253
Hard physicalism has its own problems that are avoided by epiphenomenalism, as well.

It's possible to achieve avoidance of specific problems either way. It's just a matter of which problems you feel like dealing with.

>>1795267
well, i think physicalism properly understood should not need to resort to epiphenomenalism, because it would not entail "nonexistence of mental life" and such nonsense.

huh?

STOP RUINING MY FAVE BOARD AMERICUNTS. TAKE YOUR STUPIDITY SOMEWHERE ELSE