US Census Numbers Worth Consideing

[billvon 3,120]

>Why do I assume that you assume it's negative?

Cause you said I did.

>anyway - is more takers than makers a good ratio?

I don't think there is any one good ratio. The results of the ratio is what matters. Let's take a few examples:

A society where there is small government, and they provide only (for example) military protection. In this case, the "makers" spend a lot of their money building roads, creating private data networks, managing air traffic, dealing with retirees etc. This is overhead and detracts from their profits, but helps the economy as a whole because they are paying construction workers, IT workers etc. We'll call this the libertarian model.

A society where there is a pretty big government, and they provide basic services - roads, air traffic control, military, spectrum management etc. In this case, the "makers" spend a lot of their money paying the government to build roads, create public data networks, manage air traffic, deal with retirees etc. This is, again, overhead and detracts from their profits, but helps the economy as a whole because they are indirectly paying construction workers, IT workers etc. We'll call this the US model.

A society where there is a very large socialist government, and they provide all services - employment, air traffic control, military etc etc. You could conceivably have a case where there are no private workers at all - the government manages all employment. All labor goes to support the economy, and products are produced. We'll call this the socialist model.

Which is the best ratio? With good management they can all be equally productive. History has shown that the socialist model doesn't work when taken to extremes (communism) and the libertarian model has problems when taken to its extremes (coercive monopolies etc.) However these problems are inherent to the method of government, not the ratio of "makers" to "takers."

In other words, there are forms of government that are better or worse than other forms, and the taker/maker ratio is a result of those forms of government.

[DanG 1]

Quote

makers - private sector income
takers - government provided income

My point was that those two groups overlap. I don't have numbers handy, but many people who are 'takers' are also 'makers'. For instance, in order to qualify for some government programs, you have to be working. But according to the Census numbers, those people would be considered 'takers'. Even if 10% of their income came from government programs, they would be lumped into the 'taker' category.

Quote

the labels strictly as a means to define that whatever money the government provides, still needs to come from an external source (or print it.....)

The labels are useless. Here's an analogy: a reporter wishes to argue that there are more freefliers out there than belly fliers. He creates two categories "pierced freaks" and "respectable adults". In order to group people, he says that anyone who's made a freefly jump in the last year is a "pierced freak". Everyone else is a "respectable adult". Do you really think his results will say anything useful about a DZs demographics?

- Dan G

[billvon 3,120]

>My point was that those two groups overlap.

Other examples here would be kids in public schools working as lifeguards or people working in defense industries. I worked at McClellan Air Force Base for a while for Grumman Aerospace. I was a civilian employee, working for a private company, but I worked on a military base and all my money came (eventually) from the military.

Maybe you could use a criterion like "more than half your equivalent direct income from non-government sources" or something.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Or we could accept that the whole article is written to incite condemnation from those with a particular political leaning and the whole ratio and concept is useless.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

Let's assume a ratio of 1 maker for every 10 takers.

Now let's assume that the one maker is providing $100 and the 10 takers are taking $10 combined.

That 10% ratio is pretty damn good you would think.

Now lets assume the 1 maker is providing $10 and the 10 takers take $100 combined.

That 10% ratio is aweful.

How Machiavellian of you.

The issue becomes those 10 takers have the power to take anything they want from the 1 maker now that society is established for them to vote anything they want.


your first example - maker gives $100 and takers take $10 each. so if the maker makes a total of $110.....they all get $10 in the end. unfortunately, poverty level is $20, and the maker can't find any employees or competition or customers now....

you think that's sustainable?

you like it because it balances the math... nice

I'd rather prefer Amazon's approach - we now have 10 guys making $50 due to competition and opening new markets and they all try their best. And one guy gets $20 ($2 from each of the $10) to survive because he is unable to support himself and the other 10 agree they need to help him out - and they eventually find a way to even hire him to work somehow.

how do you like my math?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Here's an analogy: a reporter wishes to argue that there are more freefliers out there than belly fliers. He creates two categories "pierced freaks" and "respectable adults". In order to group people, he says that anyone who's made a freefly jump in the last year is a "pierced freak". Everyone else is a "respectable adult". Do you really think his results will say anything useful about a DZs demographics?

that's a pretty good analogy of what I think the author was trying to do. the discussion I wanted to foster was despite that.

Though I find a lot of respectable freeflyers as well as pierced and tattooed RWers (they are unique flowers......just like everyone else) - your stereotypes are distressing (as intended )


in the interest of anecdotal tangents I will say this - the only person we ever caught trying to sneak onto a load without paying, was a freeflyer (no tattoos and a decent paying job) - thus, by using your alignment in analogies - the most selfish and irresponsible individuals must be very rich liberals that take corporate welfare.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

You wanted to know which ratio was best/sustainable.

Your math doesn't produce a ratio.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

You wanted to know which ratio was best/sustainable.

Your math doesn't produce a ratio.

No, i wanted opinions on whether it's sustainable to have a voting base where a majority are takers of one form or another.

(you see it in action - in reality, 100% are partial takers of one kind or another - do you see spending decrease in any way shape or form?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>In other words, there are forms of government that are better or worse than other forms, and the taker/maker ratio is a result of those forms of government.

A more useful study would be to see how these governments evolve over time and at what point does the structure begin to collapse as the ratio progresses. Or at what ratio was the balance healthiest?

On the alternate side - if it goes too far the wrong way (all assets are collected by a small aristocracy, or the government) - the structure will also collapse.

Both scenarios, though will begin to take from the middle class and funnel it elsewhere....up or down, doesn't matter - it all goes through the government filter.

My assumption is there is a tipping point - and we are in a society that is progressively encouraging the taker groups to increase and to vote to increase (individual or corporate, leech or deserving, whatever). I think 50/50 is a natural tipping point - though oversimplified but useful for discussion

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

The issue becomes those 10 takers have the power to take anything they want from the 1 maker now that society is established for them to vote anything they want.

Except that the "maker" can give the "scumbag" money to vote his way in the "House of Scumbags" regardless of what the "scumbag" promised to do for the "takers".

- Dan G

[Bolas 5]

Agree we need better definitions, and likely a percentage of non government income to better distinguish a maker from a taker as the government often turns around and taxes all or a portion of the money it provided. Extremely wasteful, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,120]

> I think 50/50 is a natural tipping point - though oversimplified but useful for discussion

OK let's go with that. We will stick with the "taker" and "producer" definitions but we'll have to refine them. "Producers" will be people with non-government jobs, and "takers" will be people with government jobs or people with no jobs who are getting government benefits. I will exclude schoolkids and retirees from both groups.

Let's start with a simple comparison - people who work vs people who don't. We might see 52% of the population of the US at any given time working (working years vs. school and retirement years) if we had no disabled (about 14 million) or stay-at-home parents (about 5 million.) So with full employment, graduation to retirement, minus the unable/otherwise occupied, we would see 144 million people working. That's our "100% productive worker" scenario which would be great. The actual number is about 135 million.

So that's a starting point.

Next, we have 2.7 million working for the government. So we have to reduce the producers number by 3 million. (now 132 million.)

Now let's assume that every single person who can work but who is not working is also a taker. (Arguably inaccurate but it's a good worst case.) So now we have:

92% producers
8% takers

So we're doing pretty good, if your threshold is 50/50.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>
92% producers
8% takers

So we're doing pretty good, if your threshold is 50/50.

(((aside - so why do they take nearly 50% of my paycheck of it's only 92/8.......I'm not even close to rich. something is still broken clearly. I think your math assumptions reads like that story about the guy that wanted one day off of work......but at least you are trying)))


absolutely - so now, you have to convince the makers to avoid self interest and still vote or self-identify as takers. (since politicians only win votes by making people think they are getting something at the expense of another....pick either party, neither is clean in this regard)

And you wonder why I don't trust politicians......their entire life is dependent on behavior that is designed to destroy entire societies.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I find a lot of respectable freeflyers

Bwaha!! Where?

[DanG 1]

Quote

so why do they take nearly 50% of my paycheck of it's only 92/8

Have you priced an aircraft carrier recently? Those buggers are crazy expensive.

Note: my point is that government spending is not just giving money to "takers", there are a lot of services that everyone uses that have nothing to do with welfare queens getting free Obamaphones.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,120]

>So why do they take nearly 50% of my paycheck of it's only 92/8

Bunch of reasons.

One, because they take a lot of money and give it to government contractors to build seven billion dollar ships. Those government contracting jobs are private companies employing makers.

Two, because a lot of those 92% of makers get government benefits, like free education or medicare.

Three, because the government likes to give out money to "stimulate" the economy, which also goes to makers.

>I'm not even close to rich. something is still broken clearly.

What's broken? You clearly don't like paying taxes (no one does) but what about paying taxes is broken?

>absolutely - so now, you have to convince the makers to avoid self interest and
>still vote or self-identify as takers.

The definitions of "makers" and "takers" is a cheap political ploy and so no effort should be expended to convince anyone they fall into either group. Might as well define the poor as "deserving" and the rich as "undeserving." Equally silly.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Might as well define the poor as "deserving" and the rich as "undeserving."

I prefer "eaters" and "food", but whatever.

[kallend 2,150]

Amazon

***>you keep thinking the term 'taker' is negative

Why do you assume that? By the definition in the OP, takers include soldiers, road construction workers, ATC controllers etc etc. What is inherently negative about them?

I noticed there was no mention of the many BILLIONS of welfare that is going to neither the Makers or the Takers....but to those who OWN them.

How about cattle ranchers whose herds graze on public land but who won't pay the requisite fees?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Police - bunch of takers!

Firemen - bunch of takers!

Air traffic controllers - what a bunch of takers!

Teachers - what a bunch of takers!

Disabled veterans - what a bunch of takers!

Pensioners who paid in to SS all their lives - bunch of takers!

Or it could just be that the article is stupid, written simply for the purpose in inflaming people like Marc Rush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

rehmwa

***You wanted to know which ratio was best/sustainable.

Your math doesn't produce a ratio.

No, i wanted opinions on whether it's sustainable to have a voting base where a majority are takers of one form or another.

(you see it in action - in reality, 100% are partial takers of one kind or another - do you see spending decrease in any way shape or form?)While the question is perhaps interesting, dividing the population into only two categories, prejudicially named "makers" and "takers", so obscures reality as to make any attempt at "analysis" a farce. Categorizing anyone who is paid by the government (at any level, i.e. federal, state, or local) as a "taker" (=net drain on the economy) ignores the role of government in stimulating economic activity.

For example, I am a professor at a state university. I suppose that makes me a "taker". On the other hand, just one of the courses I teach brings to the university (and so to the state, as we are a state agency) twice my salary in tuition students pay to take my course. I also teach all or part of two other undergraduate courses, and three graduate courses, all of which bring in tuition dollars. I also run a research lab that brings into the state research grants, which are mostly used to employ people who then pay taxes and spend their money in the local economy. Most of the masters and PhD students I have trained are working for private industry, mainly the biotech industry. Biotech is a multi-billion dollar component of the US economy, and it would be unable to function were it not for the availability of a trained workforce. Those students have all seen a significant return on investment in that their income (and so taxes paid) are several fold higher than what they would have been without an education. Finally a couple of things I have invented have been patented, and are under development by the private companies that licensed those patents. This generates more revenue for the university, and eventually will generate revenue for those private companies.

So all in all I bring in to my employer (the state) several times my salary in tuition dollars, I bring in more money that I use to employ people and train graduate students, and those students are integral to the success of private biotech companies.

So tell me, am I a taker or a maker?

Note that the same question could be reasonably asked for the vast majority of government employees.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Bolas 5]

Quote

ignores the role of government in stimulating economic activity.

Government stopped being able to stimulate the economy long ago, all they're doing now is just trying to sustain it.

In your example, you yourself maybe a positive economic asset, but unless the college as a whole is self sustaining/profitable, it could still be considered a taker, especially if the students received government financial aid or student loans.

From a strictly economic sense, a government is rarely if ever going to "break even" on it's "investments."

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 2,150]

Bolas

Quote

ignores the role of government in stimulating economic activity.

Government stopped being able to stimulate the economy long ago, all they're doing now is just trying to sustain it.

In your example, you yourself maybe a positive economic asset, but unless the college as a whole is self sustaining/profitable, it could still be considered a taker, especially if the students received government financial aid or student loans.

From a strictly economic sense, a government is rarely if ever going to "break even" on it's "investments."

When you consider the ROI of an educated populace, I think you'll find that teachers as a whole are makers in our economy. Just look at nations that let their education systems fail (Somalia comes to mind) and ask if that's a model you'd like to emulate.

The entire premise of the article is stupid.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Quote

so why do they take nearly 50% of my paycheck of it's only 92/8

Have you priced an aircraft carrier recently? Those buggers are crazy expensive.

Note: my point is that government spending is not just giving money to "takers", there are a lot of services that everyone uses that have nothing to do with welfare queens getting free Obamaphones.

that's right, you were the one with the strawman that everybody defines 'takers' as the negative connotation only.

I can only state that takers includes a lot of different categories about a million times. if you don't read, that's your problem

enough - what a waste of time even trying to discuss anything with this group

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Unbunch your panties and you'll see that I wasn't misreading you, just offering a different point if view.

And are you seriously going to stick with the idea that "takers" wasn't supposed to have a negative connotation?

- Dan G

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

...everybody defines 'takers' as the negative connotation only.

Well, it is a negative term, and it was used in a decidedly negative way in the article linked in the original post. Redefining it doesn't really change the "taint". You can try to redefine "rapist" as someone who enjoys sex, but that won't make people OK with being called a rapist.

Anyway the fundamental flaw in the whole discussion is trying to divide people into just two groups. You're the one who's always saying we're all individuals, and (correctly) chastising posters who lump people into stereotypes, but I can't think of a cruder or less useful sterotype than "makers" and "takers".

A useful discussion would have to include the costs vs benefits of government employees, and that would require that people be willing to look past their preconceived biases. Governments often provide services that cannot be provided by private individuals which create opportunities to generate wealth. I'll provide some examples in my rely to Bolas. Something to consider, then, would be the impact of "takers" who consume a certain share of the pie, if the actual size of the pie is larger because of the contributions of the "takers".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)