“Generational wealth” is generally a myth. The second and third generations burn through any inheritance and sprint back to middle class rather quickly.
Ref? That was definitely not my impression from listening to "Capital in the 21st Century".
In reality, wealth tends to cluster around people who are good stewards of it. They allocate capital efficiently and we are all better off.
The government is NOT a good steward of wealth. They allocate inefficiently (because no accountability) so we should minimize what we give them.
Here is a quick and dirty reference discussing how lazy kids of rich people blow it: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/generational-wealth-curse-cau...
I look at it differently: His ideas are so weak and removed from reality that they can’t even stand up to a Yahoo Finance article.
We should be careful taking policy advice from people who have never had real jobs.
>selling socialism with hand waving
Lol, more like selling it with award winning, best selling, taught in colleges books? If you're convinced that's "hand waving" you're beyond lost
Have you ever actually looked at how large companies allocate wealth, and how much actual accountability there is there? I can't tell you how many billions of dollars the company I currently work for burned with acquisitions whose products they shut down and teams they laid off two years later; and they're definitely not worse than normal, as far as I can tell. How many products has Microsoft attempted and then killed? How big is the Killed By Google graveyard? And in many cases people who make catastrophic decisions are rewarded -- "failing up" with golden parachutes and higher more influential posts.
In my experience, people who say things like this have a double standard. If you judge the government and corporations by the same standards, they come out about the same -- a bit of really good, a bit of really bad, lots of mediocre. The difference is that the government is at least nominally trying to work for the voters, whereas corporations are explicitly only working for their shareholders.
The only evidence presented is assertions by companies selling wealth management services:
> "The “third generation curse” indicates that 90% of wealthy families are likely to lose their [money](404 ERROR) by the third generation, according to AMG National."
The only link to further evidence results in a 404; and the only advice is, "Train your kids not to be stupid", and "Use one of these wealth management services".
I think I'd actually seen that exact article before I listened to Piketty's book; but Pikkety actually provides evidence across many different countries, sometimes going back to the 1700s. Absent other evidence (which again you simply assert without giving a reference to), I'd trust an academic more than a company who has a vested interest in drumming up business by scaring people.
ETA: Even supposing we take the article at face value (which I definitely have doubts about), it makes two claims:
1. Of "wealthy" families, 90% will lose it within 3 generations
2. This can be prevented if children are taught money management skills growing up
Even supposing those are true it doesn't support the statement that "generational wealth is generally a myth".
Why? Because % families != % wealth. It's perfectly possible that 10% of wealthy families who consistently teach good money management to their children control 90% of the wealth.
They're reacting to policy overreach by progressives. There's no good reason why everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman. Yet this is what's happened in recent years.
Yes it's unfortunate that it has to be the Republicans pushing back against this in terms of introducing actual policy, but at least they're fixing the problem.
You earnestly believe the party voting for children to work longer hours, more dangerous jobs, the party ensuring rape victims and children give birth to their rapists' child and in general remove women's medical autonomy, on religious grounds in a constitutionally secular democracy, are the ones 'defending women'? Shocking position.
They are encouraging ignorance and harassment. They are inspiring people like you to think there is any issue with trans people in the first place.
You have been tricked in to thinking trans people are anything more than a mostly invisible minority.
They lost the "gays and gay marriage is the devil" line and now have simply regressed to even weaker bigotry, the 1% or less I forget the exact % of people who are trans.
They do not, nor has anyone, "demanded everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman".
These labels, man and woman, are flexible social labels, not the rigorous biological category they've convinced simpletons to believe in as some sort of personal axiom.
> They do not, nor has anyone, "demanded everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman".
Sorry but you have been misinformed, this is the currently the actual progressive position. And it has led to horrifying outcomes when enacted into law, such as SB132 in California which allows imprisoned men to transfer to the women's prisons if they claim to be women: https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-...
> These labels, man and woman, are flexible social labels, not the rigorous biological category they've convinced simpletons to believe in as some sort of personal axiom.
No, what you're describing is a sexist redefinition of woman and man. There's really no need for it. It just reifies sex-role stereotypes.
You said "everything". "Everything" is what I'm challenging. No serious effort is made to force women to make any concessions, except by the party that is restricting their medical autonomy. And I guess prisoners? You've certainly got me there, but I don't think I've ever stated a good word about the correctional system.
What you link is a specific law covering a pretty specific category of people, ones already in jail. Not exactly "demanding everything women have be man's"...
You're not going to hear anyone who holds progressive political beliefs tout our countries approach to criminal correction. We house like 20% of the world's prisoners with 4% of the population. Of course prisons are rife with horrible stuff.
>No, what you're describing is a sexist redefinition of woman and man. There's really no need for it. It just reifies sex-role stereotypes
By saying the definitions are flexible I'm somehow reinforcing rigorous gender role stereotypes? That's about as non sequitor as it gets.
At the dr, in prisons, sure, get all biological. But for the rest of us normal people, it does not matter which genitals the person shitting in the stall next to me has. And it never will.
Why do you think that law was passed in the first place? It's because the current progressive position is that any male who says he's a woman should be allowed to access any service or space that was created solely for women.
This isn't just limited to prisons. Another recent instance: Title IX is being redefined in this way, which according to the UN will discriminate against and disadvantage women and girls in educational settings: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/united-state...
> By saying the definitions are flexible I'm somehow reinforcing rigorous gender role stereotypes?
Yes. If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes? When a male says he identifies as a woman, what exactly is he identifying with? You can't identify with a body you don't have, so what could he actually be identifying with, if not these stereotypes?
Because misogynist and patriarchal (agree with you there) dumbass dems over correct when they finally pick an issue to do something about? See also: latinx.
It's dumb and bad, but the other side is still way worse.
>If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes?
Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What they like and dislike?? such a debate brained take
Your question put another way:
"If the female body isn't what defines a person as a woman, what is left but sexist stereotypes?"
That's you brother, not us. That's what YOU think remains when you take biological categorization out of the picture.
Which is why people caught by the "omg trans people exist and want to be protected too" panic like yourself end up at this weird need for rigid binary gender when intersex and trans people been existing for a long time before you lot were taught to hate/fear them by fox news
Yes, so you agree with me then. As I said in my first comment, this is policy overreach by progressives. They've ended up pushing policy that enables any male who says he's a woman to access any space that was intended to be only for women. This harms women and girls.
> > If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes?
> Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What they like and dislike??
I think you misunderstood the question.
At least, I hope it's not your view that likes and dislikes are what distinguish women as a class from men as a class, and vice versa, because that wouldn't make any sense at all.
Yeah, obviously the prison shit is fucked up. And as I've said since the start, democrats are servants of capital, same as the right. But they're not wholly the same.
I also recognize project 2025, red state policy goals (read my link to texas GOP platform in another comment in this thread to see their openly fascist aims) and that red states force victims to sexual crime give birth to the attackers child because of "dur, abortion kills babies". Like nah, some over reach on a small issue that affects 1% of the population is nowhere near worth getting worked up about. We have much much bigger fish to fry. Ergo "culture war distraction"
So while we agree in some aspects I disagree giving trans people basic protections legally a slippery slope like you portray. If anything the trail of progress has been one step forward .9 steps back at best.
I also stand behind pragmatism and voting for the least shitty option we have. Which is obvious to anyone serious.
I'll take over correction to protect a marginalized group over a group that pardoned a man who drove a truck through a crowd of protestors, got out and shot one, because he shot and plowed through the group capital wanted him to. And that's the least of their evils. Gerrymandering, anti education, anti birth control, anti lgbt, buying the supreme court, the list goes on.
I'll take those dumb ass latinx idiots any day of the week, and grind my teeth while i fill in my ballot, but don't mistake my words for "i loooove democrats they're perfect.
> I hope it's not your view that likes and dislikes are what distinguish women as a class from men as a class
This is another place we fundamentally disagree.
The thing I was trying to get across was unless I'm a doctor, or a sports association, or correctional facility, what 'class' you fall in to, by your definition or mine, is moot.
Someone claiming a different gender identify than they "present" as - the real stereotypes btw but i don't got it in me to get at all the disagreements - to be has no bearing on anything to me. So why would any normal human say "uhm akshully due to your penis/chromosomes it's clear you were born this or that gender. I truly could not care.
Therefore, yes, my principle is I respect whatever gender presentation they want to display. I'll call them whatever they want to be called as long as they treat me with respect.
So yes, whether someone likes or dislikes presenting as one or the other label, man or woman, is the sole factor that determines what abstract category I put you in for our conversation.
The only other time I can think of where there is any need for such arbitrary rigidity with categorization is when you're like dating.
Then whatever your views on trans people are wholly and justly on you to define.
BUT, in the public, professional world, I think it's ridiculous to act like it matters which gender you present as outside of very narrow ranges of tasks. The rest of the time I consider it all fluid, because it's immaterial to issues like climate change and pandemics and nukes and real shit. The fact we're even talking at length about this nonsense should demonstrate the artificial push it's gotten from regressive politicians who never even wanted gay marriage.
For serious matters where the biological categorization is necessary, I'll cede to a medical biologist or the sports governing body. that's their choice. But just out in normal every day life? Yeah I stick by my fluid definitions of the social categories "man" and "woman"
I wouldn't vote for the Republicans either. What I'd like instead is Democrats to understood how regressive and corrosive to women's rights this type of policy is. It's so disappointing that they have such a misogynistic blind spot on sex and gender issues, yet can recognize the importance of women's rights in areas like reproductive choice.
>I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
They oppose estate or "death" taxes in general. That is what they mean.
>The Republican party is half the country.
They're half of voters. They haven't won the popular vote in how many years? 40? They're an obnoxiously loud minority.
>All of them?
Probably not all, but nearly all. The maga tariffs and then subsequent bailouts of farmers harmed comes to mind. reagan's austerity is another easy example.
>>Is the Culture War so important/motivating to these people that they are willing to help implement their own economic destruction? This is the culture war.
>You're doing it right now.
No, they aren't. The republicans bemoaning the 1% of people who identify as trans to distract their uneducated voters while banning books and attacking public education funding, libraries, women's rights, etc, are.
Don't fall in to the bothersider ism trap. Look at republican policy in a red state like texas[0] to see why the comment you replied to is the truth.
[0] https://www.chron.com/politics/article/texas-gop-2024-priori...