Wealth Is the Great Equalizer

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

All that is true. It’s the ‘all’s and always’ issue. Do you not believe some people should be wealthier than others? 

The real question is if our society provides opportunity. I believe it does. 

 

I think that the possibility of great wealth provides a sort of hope for some, and thus they recoil at things like "income inequality" as if it's not a problem. But it can be a critical problem, the more extreme and limiting it becomes.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Hasn’t it always been this way?

 

Yes it has. One has to work until one's posterior disappears.  

Think of the pioneers building SLC out of nothing or God organizing universes 

[ERMD]

Wealth is not the great equalizer.

If everyone were wealthy, no one would be.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I don’t  believe this. There are state schools and community colleges that are affordable. Pell grants still cover tuition at many schools for the poorest. With planning, students can still go to school. For many, some school debt is manageable. Institutions and borrowers need to practice wisdom.

I go to church with med students who leave school with $300000 in school debt and they all make choices on how to tackle that debt. None of them are wealthy now but many are wealthy after they leave my ward...even with the debt.

The occasional happy endings are just that, very occasional.  Mormons are ahead of the curve now, but will succumb in time, just like the rest of society.

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I have a good friend who made it into MIT. He came from a middle class family. No scholarship and no grants. He did make it through, with a lot of debt. He graduated and just bought a house in Boston. The debt was worth it. His first 4 years after school he lived with roommates and payed down his school loans. 

We live in an amazing country with incredible opportunities. It takes hard work, financial planning and wisdom and an expectation that you must work hard and make good choices. It takes years of this to get ahead. Hasn’t it always been this way?

No, education was relatively cheap at one time.  Young men and women could graduate without debt, get married, and raise children immediately.  We now have a major crisis in which people can't afford to marry, and are choosing to just live alone.  The birth rate is tanking.  Young men are choosing not go to college.  We have never seen such stats before, and it will not end well -- a diminishing population means that there will be no one to earn enough to supply the Social Security of the oldsters.  Japan is in even worse shape than the USA. China is also in big trouble.  https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/asia/china-population-decline-study-intl/index.html .

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/falling-fertility-rates-united-states.html .

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Wealth is not the great equalizer.

If everyone were wealthy, no one would be.

Not true at all. If everyone were wealthy is not the same as everyone having lots of currency. 

Imagine every person on the planet having food to eat, shelter, modern conveniences like washing machines, fresh running water and electricity, education, affordable medical care, and enough provisions to have free time to engage more in the governments, places of worship, and communities.

[Robert F. Smith]

Dieter F. Uchtdorf stated: “As a people, we rightfully place high priority on secular learning and vocational development. We want and we must excel in scholarship and craftsmanship. I commend you for striving diligently to gain an education and become an expert in your field."  “Your Potential, Your Privilege,” Ensign, April 2011, 59.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

Wealth is not the great equalizer.

If everyone were wealthy, no one would be.

We already are, we just don't know it.

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Not true at all. If everyone were wealthy is not the same as everyone having lots of currency. 

Imagine every person on the planet having food to eat, shelter, modern conveniences like washing machines, fresh running water and electricity, education, affordable medical care, and enough provisions to have free time to engage more in the governments, places of worship, and communities.

Now imagine a real way to get there, with no one paying for it and no incentive for them to bother to pay for the faceless "They" who cannot obtain it for themselves, and pay for the governmental infrastructure it implies to administer it all.

Best wishes.  Even I am behind THAT!   

 

 

[Bob Crockett]

On 1/31/2020 at 5:24 AM, Calm said:

Can someone explain how equality is achieved when only some people become wealthy. 
 

False principle.  In the Lord's kingdom, nobody has wealth above basic needs.  Nobody has personal or real property.   The reason we accumulate wealth on this planet is that the Lord's system isn't prevailing.  

Far from being the great equalizer, wealth is the greatest destroyer known -- greater than immorality or apostasy.  The great characteristic of the Whore of Babylon is her great wealth.  

Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We already are, we just don't know it.

I think that's a presumptious thing to say, given the vast spectrum of wealth and poverty in existence.

[mfbukowski]

 Yes education is clearly the problem.

I have been out of the loop for a LONG time.

How did it get so expensive relative to everything else?  Where is the anomaly relative to inflation?

Edited February 1, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Anijen]

On 1/31/2020 at 11:13 AM, The Nehor said:

 Our healthcare system is designed to make sure people work as health care is almost a protection racket run by employers.

I know it is my personal responsibility to provide for my family and keep them safe including keeping them as healthy as possible. I do not believe it is my duty to provide for other parents' children, or to take away another fathers duty to keep his children safe and healthy.

I am a business owner. It is successful just enough that allows me to provide, for my children. Our health insurance comes from a federal government job that I have since retired from. My health insurance does not come from the business that I now own. My family run business cannot afford my own families health insurance let alone my employees. I pay my employees a good wage ($15.00, or higher). This is for unskilled work.  On top of the employee wage, I also pay by law, I pay workman's comp and I have to pay a substantial portion of my own employees Medicare tax (I pay 1.45%) and Social Security tax (I pay 6.2%). I do so faithfully each pay period. How am I (the employer) running a protection racket?

 

Quote

The wealth gap is growing more and more concerning. While we have better “stuff” than even before in terms of electronics and much of it is accessible to everyone few have a feeling of security and history shows that huge wealth gaps between the wealthy and the average citizen usually lead to revolution or economic collapse. Add in that we are starting to obsolete jobs more and more through automation and we will need to re-examine our economic model soon. What do you do when full employment isn’t realistic because fewer can do work more easily than many can? In the short term the boomer generation retiring will put some power back in the hands of employees as the work force is due to contract.

I agree with this, but I'll add; Through my studies in History the wealth gap is one reason for revolution and economic collapse, but most these wealth gaps were sparked by the catalyst of high taxes (the American revolution was started by the British taxation policies). It is through taxes that enrich governments and cause that governments people to be poorer. True, Automation will take away many jobs (including white collar jobs such as lawyer, judge, etc.).

Quote

Beware the marketed advice of successful people. They do not need or seek company. Any investment that needs to advertise is probably garbage that will eat you alive in fees from the person recouping the cost of advertising.

This, I 100% agree with.

[Anijen]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Only the wealthy can afford to get an education now.  The Zoramites are running everything, and they control gov't.  So no likelihood of change.  We need to make a communal effort, just like the Jews.

I don't know. It appears even the poorest dunderhead qualifies for a Pell-Grant these days.

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that's a presumptious thing to say, given the vast spectrum of wealth and poverty in existence.

You didn't get it, sorry

It was about our standard of living versus the ancients.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You didn't get it, sorry

It was about our standard of living versus the ancients.

Still applies. Perhaps you're applying a middle value to today's wealth rather than considering those on the planet still in poverty and extreme poverty? In fact the absolute number of those in extreme poverty today, about 650 million and, though much lower than in past decades, still vastly outstrips populations at any time of the ancient world. And unfortunately the poorest of the world have been in stagnation for a long time.

The OP is not about average income, or the fact that an average family today enjoys a better standard of living than ancient kings. It is that of relative wealth of those sharing the planet together at one time. The fact that regular folk have such great standards of living could rather be a reason to focus on the stagnation of the millions upon millions of the very poorest of the poor of the world.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Still applies. Perhaps you're applying a middle value to today's wealth rather than considering those on the planet still in poverty and extreme poverty? In fact the absolute number of those in extreme poverty today, about 650 million and, though much lower than in past decades, still vastly outstrips populations at any time of the ancient world. And unfortunately the poorest of the world have been in stagnation for a long time.

The OP is not about average income, or the fact that an average family today enjoys a better standard of living than ancient kings. It is that of relative wealth of those sharing the planet together at one time. The fact that regular folk have such great standards of living could rather be a reason to focus on the stagnation of the millions upon millions of the very poorest of the poor of the world.

Thanks for the reply.  That was not what I was talking about.

It's ok.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for the reply.  That was not what I was talking about.

It's ok.

You're welcome. "We're already wealthy" still doesn't work, even in comparison to ancient times, not if you remember millions and millions of the poorest of the poor today. Hopefully you were not including them.

"It's okay."

[Stargazer]

On 1/31/2020 at 1:24 PM, Calm said:

Can someone explain how equality is achieved when only some people become wealthy. 

The point of the page at your link has nothing to do with achieving equality.  "Equalizer" in this context refers to how specialized knowledge and wise application of that knowledge can somewhat equalize your disadvantages with respect to such people as Bill Gates, and prominent investors like the guy started Berkshire-Hathaway (forget the name at the moment).  Ah, Warren Buffett.

It's kind of like the old saw: "God made man, But Samuel Colt made them equal".  I suppose you know who Sam Colt was.  

On 1/31/2020 at 1:24 PM, Calm said:

“Wealth is the great equalizer. It gives you freedom, security, and peace of mind. It allows you to do and be what you want, to support worthy causes and help those closest to you. It enables you to follow your dreams, to spend your life the way you choose.”

The slogan that goes with this idea is “Liberty through Wealth” and is in the context of liberty in America.

If you have wealth, you have more liberty, in certain respects, than someone who lacks wealth.

On 1/31/2020 at 1:24 PM, Calm said:

I can see the idea of wealth giving an individual personal freedom of choice, but any sort of institutional freedom/liberty for all in the country...not seeing it  

I don't think that's the intent in this "wealth project".  

On 1/31/2020 at 1:24 PM, Calm said:

I am getting ads to order the book, etc. but at this point don’t even see the logic behind linking “equality” and “wealth” through specialized knowledge only available to some.

https://investmentu.com/the-great-american-wealth-project-review/

Please keep personalities out of it and just deal with the ideas please, not who is promoting them. I want to understand the reasoning, not condemn it...once that is achieved, people can do what they want as far as I am concerned with the board rules, but avoid details for several pages at least please. 
 

Equality of outcome is unachievable, in any case.  The problem is actually insurmountable: not everyone is equally wise, nor in equally favorable circumstances.  We all have our free choice, and some of us make good use of it, and some do not.   Some, with the best of intentions, make bad decisions, or experience events beyond their control.  There are also those who go through life making random, haphazard decisions, with no goal in sight, and are surprised sometimes by overwhelming good luck, but more often by poverty.

And some make a string of wise decisions, become very successful, and then screw it all up.  One of my co-workers, many years ago, was influenced by Wade Cook. This coworker, whom I will call Marvin, read some of Cook's advice books and took it into his head to borrow $40,000 from his wife's retirement savings (with her permission).  He then proceeded to double the 40k, paid her back, and then in about a year and half managed to build his portfolio up to around a million dollars.  Or more, I forget the exact figure.  Marvin quit his programming job somewhere along the way, and finally bought a ranch in Montana and that was the last I heard of him.  Until about two years later, when I read in the newspaper that he had been arrested for, of all things, buying "surplus" military equipment and selling it on the black market. Of course, he went to prison for a few years.  I asked around and found out what happened to him. It turned out that he tried to make his ranch into some kind of conference center, and sunk a lot of money into it, but his business model was not viable, and he lost the ranch and had a huge debt on top of that.  The military surplus angle was just him trying to reestablish a grub stake for future business deals.  It didn't work.

Another co-worker, a very business savvy man from Vietnam, went into real estate development big time and started becoming very successful.  His last project that I knew about involved developing a large business park, which seemed to be doing well, but then the 2008 economic downturn hit, and he lost it all.  I don't know what happened to him after that. He made no bad decisions, but circumstances beyond his control overturned his apple cart.

I have quite a few stories like these. I also have one about a man who started out in real estate development, partnered with another knowledgeable man, and 30 years after founding their business their company owns tens of millions of dollars of office space in a state capital, and he (who at one point was my bishop) is a retired multimillionaire.  He did things right, and in spite of setbacks (e.g. wife dying of cancer and leaving him with 5 kids) he persevered. And prospered.

I've tried to go into one business or other over the course of my life and I failed at everything I tried.  I was a pretty good computer programmer, though, and succeeded in that at least, and modestly provided for my retirement.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Anijen said:

I don't know. It appears even the poorest dunderhead qualifies for a Pell-Grant these days.

If it is so easy, why are students graduating with such huge student debt?

[Anijen]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If it is so easy, why are students graduating with such huge student debt?

Excellent question.

I have an autistic son (high functioning) who earned his BS without any debt, zero. He didn't even have a scholarship, it was all paid by his Pell-Grant. I think part of the reason there is so much student debt is one will change their major multiple times, perhaps take a study abroad course, use some of that grant money to pay non-college related bills, take huge student loan debt out for grad school (Pell-Grant does not cover grad school), choose an expensive school, when staying home and going to an in-state school is just as good, (Bachelor's degree is just as credible), probably many other reasons.

However, frankly a frugal lifestyle and reliance on pell grants, scholarships, and choosing a college or university close to home is really just a destination bus stop away. One really doesn't need to go out of state (especially if we are just talking about getting an undergrad degree).

[bsjkki]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If it is so easy, why are students graduating with such huge student debt?

Some is by choice (private school vs state school) but I tend to agree tuition has gone up too fast. More students are going to college now then in the past so that has driven demand. States are spending less on state schools and that has also increased costs. "According to the Department of Education, US colleges expected a total of 20.4 million students in fall 2017, about 5.1 million more than in fall 2000." It is completely untrue that only the rich are can attending college.

In 1970, financial-aid programs "were almost nonexistent," he said. "Generally, middle-income people didn't get money from the federal government; the large majority of students did not."

In 1978, Congress passed a bill known as the Middle Income Student Assistance Act. This made all undergraduates regardless of income class eligible for subsidized loans and middle-income students eligible for Pell Grants, according to NASPA, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. More and more students started applying for financial aid, Vedder said.

"Knowing that students will get this financial-aid money, the university raises fees and takes advantage to capture that themselves," Vedder explained, referring to an idea known as the Bennett hypothesis...

Terry Hartle, a senior vice president of the American Council on Education, boils down the increasing cost of college to this: Many state governments have cut operating support for higher education, for at least a generation, and let colleges replace the lost revenue with tuition hikes." https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-college-so-expensive-2018-4

The costs are not just for tuition. Housing costs are very high in the dorms. One year of dorm living costs over $11,000 at my state school and it is required all freshmen live in the dorms unless they live with their parents. It makes it cheaper for me to send my kids to Utah because the rent is so much less.

More middle class kids are going to college. Tuition and housing are more expensive compared to what they can earn at summer jobs.

Pell grants really help the poor but the middle class gets stuck in the middle. Those are the kids with debt but if they are smart about their degree earning potential, the loans can still be worth it. Don't go to Harvard and get an elementary education degree. It might not pay off. 

[Calm]

Pell Grant used to require parents having a low income if claimed as a dependent. I couldn’t apply for a Pell until a full year after my marriage. If single and living at home part of the year or supported in some fashion by parents...and using parents’ health insurance is often essential, it may be cheaper to lose eligibility for Pell Grants...unless requirements have been changed. That removes a significant portion of the middle and upper class population from eligibility. That might not make a big deal with upper, but middle can hurt if the family can’t afford to either drop the kid as a dependent and can’t make up the loss themselves.  
 

And $6000 a year grant is helpful, but not going to cover all costs in many cases.

Quote

The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain post-baccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education. The maximum Pell Grant for the 2018-19 award year (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019) is $6.095. Grants are not loans. 

https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/417

Quote

Students whose families have a total income of up to $50,000 may be eligible for the need-based funding, though most Pell grant money goes to students with a total family income below $20,000.

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 2/1/2020 at 1:24 PM, ERMD said:

Wealth is not the great equalizer.

If everyone were wealthy, no one would be.

Ridiculous and Telestial. If you cannot be wealthy unless 85% of people are poorer than you than you are doing it wrong. Wealth is temporal security.

[The Nehor]

The problem is we give teens who are not even considered mature enough to drink the ability to blow up their lives with non-dischargeable loans they do not understand. Make student loan debt dischargeable under reasonable circumstances and the lenders will run and problem solved.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, bsjkki said:

................................ It is completely untrue that only the rich are can attending college.....................................

False,  Unless you are talking about local junior colleges with Associate degrees, only the wealthy can attend real colleges without going into onerous debt.  That debt is so heavy that it destroys any hope of climbing out of it.  Even where the student and govt agreed beforehand that the debt would be forgiven if the student graduated and served in certain needed professions  in particular places.  Why?  Because the govt deliberately fails to keep such agreements.  The law is no protection at all.

It is a false economy to suppose that subsidizing education is simply a bottomless well sucking up capital with never any return.  Investment in people returns huge dividends for society, and works remarkably well in those societies which do it.

Should we rather simply continue to allow large swaths of our society to find nothing more meaningful that overdosing on opioids?  Our failure to act will have much more costly consequences than any outlays for education.