The American Dream

I found this essay about the current state of America's economy quite interesting, as we are going the same route as it currently stands:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...

This essay seems to be a follow up on this bw online article:

http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazi...

Some more statistics:

http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/...

Nice op/ed piece. Built around several fallacious arguments though.

The only part of the story that I agree with is that the very highest incomes have increased out of proportion to the work they do. By that, I mean the ratio of CEO pay to average employee pay is undeserved (for the most part), especially considering that there is rarely a stick to go along with all that carrot.

Other than that, it''s at least well written, even if it is wrong.

The Government cannot create wealth. I would match the decline to the increased government intervention and the decline in public education. The Government has f*cked over the poor and is only getting worse the longer we allow it to happen.

How is it wrong? I know next to nothing of economics, so I''d be curious to know why you think their arguments are incorrect

It''s Christmas so i can''t really do the math. But back in the day pay increases were measurably higher than they are today, but so was inflation. Inflation is virtually nonexistant so salaries have not increased substantially.

Also, it use to be that you could move up in the world without a college education, simply by staying in your unskilled labor position for a long period of time. With globalization other countries are taking over American jobs. Why should a company pay an American 50,000 for a job a mexican can do as well for 1,000.00. Libs believe it is the responsibility of corporations to make jobs for people. Actually, its the responsbility of corporations to be profitable for the shareholders. Sounds evil, but that''s capitalism.

If you read the Businessweek article, they say the reason for the poor not moving up is because poor people are not going to college, which is correct. I also attirbute it to urban blight. The leftwing looney article starts talking about how it is rich people''s fault in their efforts to stay rich.

The problem is the failed public education system which no one, neither Republican or Democrat, knows how to fix.

The article is, in fact, poorly written, and is the same claptrap that the libs spout all the time.

Some CEO''s are overpaid and some deserve their pay. Their pay should be in ratio to the performance of the company, but often it is not. What the employees get paid is inconsequential to the pay of a CEO.

Good day...

Actually, its the responsbility of corporations to be profitable for the shareholders. Sounds evil, but that''s capitalism.

And that, to me, is the fatal flaw of capitalism as the basis for a society/civilization: the overriding impetus of that society becomes the acquisition of more and more material gain, at the expense of everyone else who gets in the way.

While we may delude ourselves that we have advanced societally beyond our caveman ancestors, the core of our civilization has, in fact, not progressed much at all.

The things we chase are shinier, our achievements are greater, and our ability to communicate has also progressed more than we could have then imagined.

And we also create the illusion of better justice and self-control in our society with our laws and codes of behavior.

That is exactly what it is, though: an illusion.

I think I''ve admitted it before, but I''ll repeat myself: I think the ideal human society would be the Utopian version of communism: a civilization where everyone works for the benefit of the common good, and everyone is able to share in the benefits of that hard work.

However, I am enough of a realist to acknowledge that such a society will probably never work. Greed is the most basic of human impulses, and that wrench will always find a way to throw a civilization into chaos.

I have come to accept that all I can do in life is try to preserve the safety and well-being of the people I love, because I simply cannot have a greater influence than that. I have a decent job, my basic needs are met, I have plenty beyond that as well. My only real desire in life is not to lose that. I have no ambitions to become rich or powerful; I just want to live a simple, happy life, and to have security that when I have a family of my own (probably someday very soon) that I can ensure their safety and comfort. Nothing more, nothing less.

And frankly, in this cutthroat world we live in, I can''t ensure that, despite how little I''m actually asking for.

That is why I have so much anger directed towards the people who tear down the lives of others, be it through war or through corporate greed or through crime. I don''t care what method, it''s wrong any way you cut it. People who lie, cheat, and steal, even when it''s in a legal way, are still evil in my eyes. Just because something is legal doesn''t make it right. Just because ""that''s the way life is"" doesn''t make it right.

I believe in true justice, that we as a civilization need to stop harming our fellow human beings, whether it''s by directly harming them, or leaving them on the streets saying ""too bad for them, they should try harder"", or killing them with diseases by polluting their water and food sources, or by working them too hard and taking hope away from them (see China and other failed ""communist"" societies for that one in particular), or by any of a great number of other crimes that aren''t necessarily regarded as such by our ""laws.""

I don''t care if someone is Donald Trump, or George Bush, or Indonesian Beggar #124432, or Elysium 2.0, they''re all people, and all of them deserve a fair life.

Sadly though, I don''t know that human civilization will ever get beyond our barbaric nature, no matter how ""advanced"" we become.

And that, to me, is the fatal flaw of capitalism as the basis for a society/civilization: the overriding impetus of that society becomes the acquisition of more and more material gain, at the expense of everyone else who gets in the way.

I''m not sure it is quite this simple. I don''t usually feel that if only the darn CEO didn''t make so much I could get the big payoff. From what little I have seen of corporate finance it looks like most companies misplace/misappropriate more money than a CEO can earn. I don''t really feel comfortable telling anyone that they make too much money; particularly when I don''t really know what they do.

On the other hand, I do have some big gripes with the current state of American capitalism.

1. Business cycle yo-yo''s: Study after study shows that companies lose money by laying off employees during downturns, only to hire new untrained employees (who will probably be paid as well as the experienced layoffs) when the economy comes back. But this is the accepted norm despite the irrationality of the practice.

2. Paying near-criminal consulting fees while ignoring employees of the corperation. Most employees have at least a few ideas about how processes can be streamlined, and money can be saved, and they would happily tell the company for free, but corperations would rather bring in professional consultants and pay them like princes to implement the latest business fad. The bad part is that the program might cost 5 million, and save the company one million per year, but they only stick with it for 2 years after which they spend more money on another fad. Thus the company is constantly losing money by changing procedures.

3. Exporting technology jobs. My problem here is that it is against the best interest of a country to lose technology jobs to another country. America needs technology for growth and security. Technology changes faster than any other industry so you can''t ""catch up later"" in an emergency situation where you need a lot of experienced technology people to fix a problem (like the Y2K bug or a war). The loss of sensitive technology to unfriendly foreign powers is also a real danger in this kind of environment.

With all that said I still believe that capitalism has given America, and much of the rest of the world, the highest standard of living ever. People have economic freedom as well as personal freedom, and often they are tied together. The choice I made to quit college has impacted my earning power, but this was my choice to make.

With all that said I still believe that capitalism has given America, and much of the rest of the world, the highest standard of living ever. People have economic freedom as well as personal freedom, and often they are tied together. The choice I made to quit college has impacted my earning power, but this was my choice to make.

I never actually argued against that point, and in fact I concede that given our limitations as a civilization, capitalism has resulted in most of our advances in technology and quality of life worldwide.

I just wish we could, as a civilization, grow beyond our limits and truly ""reach for the stars"", as it were.

The reason why this will not happen anytime soon is that our society is driven by the dogma ""greed and egoism"", which is promoted a little more every day by todays media.
I am a firm believer in our social market economy. And to see this economy dismantled and changed to your version of capitalism, just because some people are not making enough money, makes me very sad and angry at the same time.

Not very long ago it was widely accepted that we give a good share into the unemployment and retirement insurances, because we knew this will help others who are in dire need of help. Within a few years the media managed to change this view to the point, where people are openly asking why they should pay for other people, because its just these peoples fault they are unemployed and they should get of their lazy butts and start working.
With ~500k jobs available at the moment and ~7 million unemployed people how does that add up?
I rather have a little less money and know I will get the same help by the government these people get, should I be in a similar situation. But this thinking is almost gone and within a few years the social market economy will be gone as well.

You know something is really wrong with your economic system when people are fired to increase the profits. We have become the slaves of our system instead of the other way round, as it should be.

Welcome to human nature folks. You will eliminate greed the same day that you eliminate war, violence, and lust - which is to say the day after the human race is wiped out by a war-mongering, greedy race of lusty space octopi.

Every person involved in a corporation in a modern capitalist country - whether CEO, stockholder, or janitor - has chosen for themselves the deal they have with said company. The company may have decided that janitors are worth $20,000/year. If no janitor will work for less than $25,000/year the company is out of luck. It is no different for a CEO.

Each employee has made their own agreement, and offers what they have for a price they are willing to take. Companies that underpay janitors or overpay CEO''s will find themselves with trash-filled halls and a losing balance sheet. And those companies won''t be around very long.

As for disdain for profit, every scientific advance you use - from the lightbulb to antibiotics - is available to the public because somebody wanted to make a profit. Every million dollar device that is now affordable to almost everyone - your computer, for example - was made affordable by a desire of companies to find ways to do things cheaper...driven by profits.

Profits drive technology, medicine, education, and a host of other things - and in the few hundred years we have been doing these things for profit, we have accomplished more than in all of human history before.

Think about it.

You will eliminate greed the same day that you eliminate war, violence, and lust - which is to say the day after the human race is wiped out by a war-mongering, greedy, and race of lusty space octopi.

New sig!

The difference is that greed was under control for ~30 years, but it is getting out of hand.

I don''t disdain profit, I disdain profit by firing the people that brought you in the position you are in the first place and replacing them by the next wave of new and cheaper workers.

As for the CEO discussion, I don''t care how much a CEO gets, but I am not willing to agree that a CEO that drives the company into debt and then leaving gets a huge compensation. No matter if he is responsible for 10 or 1000 workers, if he crashes the company he can leave with a ''oh my bad'' and a big sum in his pocket. Where does that add up?

"chrisg" wrote:

I don''t disdain profit, I disdain profit by firing the people that brought you in the position you are in the first place and replacing them by the next wave of new and cheaper workers.

I think its inevitable with huge corporate structures. There is some red thin line after which you as a leader/owner do not/can not think about people as individs, but mere numbers.

Size does matter and I`ve always been firm believer that smaller is better. Small cells even work better, they organize themselves better, they are much more flexible. I doubt if you are introduced to Stanislav Lem`s sci-fi apart from Hollywood versions pf ""Solaris"", but he had perfect example - a novel ""Unbreakable"" about two parallel evolution lines of robots from crashed spaceship on unknown planet. As no humans survived, they had to organize themselves: part of them adjusted themselves to climate by creating highly specialized and giant machineries and others evolved into small ""cells"" - pretty dumb on their own, but capable of working in teams. Guess which survived.

Of course, sci-fi is not a documentary, but there were many good points in ""morale"" of the story.

Right now companies are trying to mimic dinos but their weight will kill them at one point.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Every person involved in a corporation in a modern capitalist country - whether CEO, stockholder, or janitor - has chosen for themselves the deal they have with said company. The company may have decided that janitors are worth $20,000/year. If no janitor will work for less than $25,000/year the company is out of luck. It is no different for a CEO.

This is a gross over-simplification that arrives at a wrong conlcusion. Things are different at the top. The CEOs are hired and terminated differently. CEOs compensation packages are negotiated meticulously custom-tailored, unlike those of janitors''. Further, there is a limited pool of potential CEOs for, say, a given spot at a Fortune 1000 company, since there are fairly strict guidelines and rules which boards of directors are issuing the executive search agencies with. In contrast, the pool of prospective janitors is limitless, and is constantly replenished. Lastly, and more importantly, a janitor can''t alter the rules of engagement with the system. However CEO can augment them fairly easily, pushing his agenda through office and board. They are the system. With the amount of the control on the system, they can and do bend it to their will. Jose the non-unionized No Inglez Comprenda janitor can''t collude with a doorman and a freight dock worker to prop their salaries from $20K to $25K. A CEO, with a backing of CFO and a few board members, can. To deny that is sounds to me like either idealism or ignorance.

I have been trying to avoid this thread like the plague. Not because I have nothing to contribute, but because I have had trouble crystalizing my thoughts when trying to address such broad issues.

This topic covers economics, the free market system, socialism, human nature, and the role of government...all in one fell swoop.

I read once that no one would stand over the shoulder of a brian surgeon and tell him that they would do the operation a different way. People intuitively understand that they know nothing about brain surgery, and so stay the hell out of the way. The same cannot be said about economics. People feel free to provide their opinions about the way economic systems do and should work, without even the most rudimentary understanding of the way economies actually function.

I would love it if we lived in a perfect Utopian society as well. Of course, I know that will never happen, so the only time I waste dwelling on that topic is when someone else brings it up. People always have, and always will, have their own self-interest at heart. Knowing that, and playing to it, drives innovation and prosperity, which makes everyone''s lives better. Being self-interested doesn''t preclude charity or great social works. It only means that they are better and more successful if driven voluntarily, as opposed to being forced into it.

I have a dozen great books about these issues if you care to actually read more.

Things are different at the top. The CEOs are hired and terminated differently. CEOs compensation packages are negotiated meticulously custom-tailored, unlike those of janitors''. Further, there is a limited pool of potential CEOs for, say, a given spot at a Fortune 1000 company, since there are fairly strict guidelines and rules which boards of directors are issuing the executive search agencies with. In contrast, the pool of prospective janitors is limitless, and is constantly replenished. Lastly, and more importantly, a janitor can''t alter the rules of engagement with the system. However CEO can augment them fairly easily, pushing his agenda through office and board. They are the system. With the amount of the control on the system, they can and do bend it to their will. Jose the non-unionized No Inglez Comprenda janitor can''t collude with a doorman and a freight dock worker to prop their salaries from $20K to $25K. A CEO, with a backing of CFO and a few board members, can. To deny that is sounds to me like either idealism or ignorance.

The only difference is one of scale. For every job in the company there is a skillset required. Yes, almost anyone can do a janitor''s job. That is why they are paid less and the negotiation between employee and employer is a simple one. However, the same premise is true for the CEO. A custom benefit package and access to the board does not change the fact that you are still doing nothing more than matching a skillset to a job. And if either janitor or CEO perform poorly, the company will suffer and that individual will likely be out of a job.

You state you have a problem with my oversimplifying this, but it really is that simple. It rather seems to me that you have a problem with this discrepancy beingunfair,but as someone should have told you long ago, life ain''t fair, pal...

I dont think anyone is denying the fact that those at the top will have resources and access to a larger share. I think most informed people will agree that it should be that way.

However, I think most people get outraged when they feel it is spiraling out of control. I think most people get outraged when circumstances seem to reveal that someone is actually rewarded for incompetence or willfull corporate maliciousness.

What most people should realize is that believe it or not there are limits to what they can do and more than likely, even though they would do things differently, they probably would do much worse than the ex CEO of Enron let alone trying to run GE, Time Warner, Viacom, GM, Ebay, Citicorp, or AT&T.

However, I think most people get outraged when they feel it is spiraling out of control.

Spiraling out of who''s control?

Running a large public company is a stressful and important job. Thousands of employees and business partners and millions of customers and shareholders rely on the good judgment of corporate chief executives, who have to make decisions in a climate of constant uncertainty.

I don''t begrudge these people the pay they make. The trend that bothers me is that of ""golden parachutes"" and other payments which reward bosses even when they fail. The average departing CEO receives a severance package worth $16.5m.

Life for most people is about the carrot and the stick. Not only does it seem that CEOs are being fed ever bigger carrots, but also that if the stick is finally applied to their backside, they walk away with yet another sackful of carrots to cushion the blow.

The solution to this problem lies in capitalism''s strength...the shareholders. They must become more involved in the companies that they own. After all, they are the ones that technically supply the carrots.

""The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind. ""
~Gordon Gekko ""Wall Street"" (1987)

Apart from being moraly superior to everyone else in here, (by the very nature of mainly ignoring this forum) I have donned my HAZMAT duds to briefly offer you the final word on this topic.

It also allows me to use the above quote which I had for a signature a long time ago (thus again, proving my advanced mental capacity compared to all of you bottom feeders) which offered my views on this discussion way back when it was only myself and ''Mr. Horizons'' taking on the liberal masses in this pit of political prattle.

But, my fine (yet confused) friends, in order to share the final word on this topic, it requires a story:

Let us go back to the days of men in the state of nature, ie. no laws, no rules, and no governing.

Perhaps some of you think it was all campfires and singing? Alot of hand holding as men thought life was all peaches n'' creme?

And indeed, perhaps it was (though I highly doubt it, and since I''m soooooo much smarter then you, you should take my word for it). But then came the day when that guy (the one who wears the concert T-shirt at the same concert he''s attending) thought to himself ""hmm, I want that.""

Well, it all went downhill from there. Life became ''harsh, brutal and short'' according to someone who was just as smart as me, Thomas Hobbs. We required laws to keep each other in check, we needed to find ways to keep our fellow humankind from complete anarachy. The easiest way was to just force people not to do dumb stuff, but sadly, the people trying to make the other people not do the dumb stuff, were dumb. But the people who love people are the greatest people.....blah blah blah.

Fast forward to today, our laws at the most basic level strive to keep us from each other''s throats, and though we''ve gone waayyy too far in making these laws, we at least, were able to get the basic principle down.

Now, how about coming up with ''laws'' that were basicly ''guide lines'' to keeping us in-line? Something flexable enough to give anyone a chance, yet strict enough not to allow cattle rape as means to make a living. (and Ratty, don''t you dare respond ""Cattle Rape: Should be a means to make a living"")

Ahhhhhhh, a system that rewards those who work the hardest. Perhaps not the hardest at the actual job thats being compensated for, but thats what makes this so neat. It rewards those who decide they want monetary gains over anything else, even a soul.

Some CEO''s don''t deserve a single dime for what they contribute to the company, but they deserve every single penny for making it to that position and allowing other foolish folks to pay them that much.

The free markets are very efficient. Not smart, mind you, but efficient. Those that are smart and can work it to their advantage win the cupie doll. Those that complain that the world is against them, and how they can''t compete because their lives are so sad? They get a big plate of nothing. A well deserved plate at that.

The problem isn''t that our market system is brutal. Its just that everyone is too lazy to care. Or too scared to compete.

Everyone has the chance to make it in this system. It''ll eat you alive if you let it, you may sell your soul along the way to make the big bucks, and thats sad, but hey, its your life. Or you could decide at what level you''ll balance income to inner peace....under this free market system, that choice is yours to make.

So to review:

I''m better then you.
Capitalism is the best system in the world.
This is what happens when I have some time to kill.
I''m not really better then you, but I was able to escape the evil taint of this forum and better myself as a human being.
So, yeah, I guess that does make me better then you. *SNAP* *SNAP* You go boy!! Grrrrroooowwwwllllll Ewwwww,yeahhhhhh all that and a bag of chips *SNAP* whatcha say!?! Bow chikka bow bow, oh yeah!

From my hero, Thomas Sowell:

Within a week of each other, two earthquakes struck on opposite sides of the world -- an earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale in California and a 6.6 earthquake in Iran. But, however similar the earthquakes, the human costs were enormously different.

The deaths in Iran have been counted in the tens of thousands. In California, the deaths did not reach double digits. Why the difference? In one word, wealth.

Wealth enables homes, buildings and other structures to be built to withstand greater stresses. Wealth permits the creation of modern transportation that can quickly carry people to medical facilities. It enables those facilities to be equipped with more advanced medical apparatus and supplies, and amply staffed with highly trained doctors and support staff.

Those who disdain wealth as crass materialism need to understand that wealth is one of the biggest life-saving factors in the world. As an economist in India has pointed out, ""95 percent of deaths from natural hazards occur in poor countries.""

You can see the effect of wealth by looking at the same country at different times. The biggest hurricane to hit the United States was hurricane Andrew in 1998 but it took fewer than 50 lives. Yet another hurricane, back in 1900, took at least 6,000 lives in Galveston.

The difference was that the United States was a much richer country in 1998. It had earlier warning from more advanced weather tracking equipment. It had better roads and more cars in which to evacuate before the hurricane struck, as well as more and better equipment for digging victims out of debris, and better medical treatment available for those who needed it.

Those who preen themselves on their ""compassion"" for the poor, and who disdain wealth, are being inconsistent, if not hypocritical. Wealth is the only thing that can prevent poverty. However, if you are not trying to prevent poverty but to exploit it for political purposes, that is another story.

There is another side to the story of these two earthquakes and their consequences. It gives the lie to the dogma being propagandized incessantly, from the schools to the media, that one culture is just as good as another.

It is just as good to lose tens of thousands of lives as not to? What hogwash! It is just as good to lack modern medicine, modern transportation, and modern industry as it is to have them? Who is kidding whom?

This dogmatism prevails at home as well as internationally. Cultures that lead to most children being born to single mothers are just as good as cultures where children grow up with two parents -- if you believe the dogma.

Facts say the opposite. Whether it is education, crime, or poverty, there are huge differences between single-parent families and two-parent families. Even race doesn''t make as much difference in outcomes. The poverty rate among black married couples is in single digits. The infant mortality rate among black married women with only a high school diploma is lower than the infant mortality rate among white unmarried women who have been to college.

None of this makes a dent in those who promote the big lie that one culture is just as good as another. What does it even mean to say that? Does it mean that facts fit the dogma? Or does it just mean that they choose to use words in a certain way? It may not make any difference in their theories, but only in the real world.

None of this means that one culture is better than another for all purposes. The cheap vulgarity and brutal ugliness of so much of our media is a legitimate complaint at home and abroad. The sheer silliness of our fad-ridden public schools is a national disgrace.

By the same token, cultures that are less advanced in some ways often have contributions to make in other ways. We all take different things from different cultures to create our own personal lifestyles. We need to stop pretending that it makes no difference when all the facts show that it makes a huge difference, from poverty to matters of life and death.

Good stuff from Sowell, and it made me think:

Remember those thousands of French people who died because it was hot? Sounds like France could use some wealth too.

The poverty rate among black married couples is in single digits.

It is remarkable what people can do when they have the freedom to do it. Where is the freedom in government dependency?

Back on topic:

"Chrisg" wrote:

I don''t disdain profit, I disdain profit by firing the people that brought you in the position you are in the first place and replacing them by the next wave of new and cheaper workers.

Who will be out of a job anyway when the company goes under because it refused to compete by cutting costs...

Actually, while I understand the sentimental feeling expressed here, I think it to be misguided. Getting rid of 100 people''s jobs in favor of lower labor prices usually means lower prices of products for tens of thousands of people, or more if the cost-savings is forced upon competing companies in an industry.

As an example, would you rather pay $10,000 or $20,000 for a car - if the only difference between the cars was that by buying one, you allowed high-priced factory workers to keep their jobs? Labor for companies is no different than any purchase you yourself might make.

The Iran earthquake being compared to the central CA earthquake is totally preposterous. Unless he is trying to maintain that wealth allows people to live furhter apart. Its totaly apples to oranges. Would you feel the same if an earthquake was centered around Los Angeles vs. one that was 100 miles from the nearest major population center in Iran?

That area of CA probably has nowhere near a population of 40,000. (the number of dead so far in Iran) I doubt whether San Luis Obispo (the nearest significant population center) has 50,000 people.

I cant believe the author is patting ourselves on the back because we arent a third world country. We have trained fireman and many more and better equipped hospitals because we are rich! Our architecture is better able to withstand stress because our engineers are better educated! We are great because we have better infrastructure than a third world desert nation! CA has more resources than Iran! Wow, thats so profound!

As an example, would you rather pay $10,000 or $20,000 for a car - if the only difference between the cars was that by buying one, you allowed high-priced factory workers to keep their jobs? Labor for companies is no different than any purchase you yourself might make.

Now thats an exaggeration if Ive ever heard one. If you look towards another CA dilema, the supermarket strikes, the reality is quite different. Wal-mart''s savings is pretty negligable compared to the competition and the cost is pretty high. Wal-mart typically sells a $29.99 item for something like $27.84. The difference is that Wal-mart employees make $9 an hour part time with no benefits and the grocery stores that Wal-mart is trying to compete with pay their cashiers $15-18 an hour full time with benefits. This should be another thread. I have known about this and havent posted this since the article isnt available online. (well it will cost $2.50 per online article and its a 3 piece editorial in the LA Times) Ral''s quote proved too much an invitation to open the discussion.

If the LA Times is in big enough circulation that your library has it, you can check out the articles entitled, ""The Wal-mart Effect"" published starting on Nov 23 or 24, 2003.

I cant believe the author is patting ourselves on the back because we arent a third world country. We have trained fireman and many more and better equipped hospitals because we are rich! Our architecture is better able to withstand stress because our engineers are better educated! We are great because we have better infrastructure than a third world desert nation! CA has more resources than Iran! Wow, thats so profound!

When a significant portion of the populace spends most of its time ranting against the wealth that makes California a better place to live than Iran you have to go back to simple principles.

As for your first contention that the earthquakes aren''t the same: when was the last time 40,000 people died in any earthquake in California?

I cant believe the author is patting ourselves on the back because we arent a third world country. We have trained fireman and many more and better equipped hospitals because we are rich! Our architecture is better able to withstand stress because our engineers are better educated! We are great because we have better infrastructure than a third world desert nation!

Iran is sitting on the second or third (depending on where you read it) largest oil reserves in the world. Tell me again why it has poor education and infrastructure?

As to your LA supermarket issue (perhaps a better toic for a new thread) - maybe some of the Wal-Mart employees should go to work for the supermarkets at $11/hour without benefits, allowing the markets to lower their prices and be competitive. See, I can solve anything!

That area of CA probably has nowhere near a population of 40,000. (the number of dead so far in Iran) I doubt whether San Luis Obispo (the nearest significant population center) has 50,000 people.

Just to get our facts straight. The city of Bam, Iran and surrounding areas are estimated by the United Nations to have a population of between 100-120,000 people. The current death toll is about 28,000 people, estimated to rise to as high as 40,000. Ninety percent of houses and public buildings are 60 to 100 percent damaged or destroyed. Damage to the remainder of the buildings is estimated between 40 and 60 percent.

The area between San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles, which is a little bit smaller than the region in Iran being discussed has a population of 248,000, according to the 2000 census.

So, to sum up. The quake in Iran killed 1/5 to 1/3 of the population and destroyed the homes of those left alive. A quake of the same magnitude killed 1 in 124,000. You were saying the author was wrong why?

As to your LA supermarket issue (perhaps a better toic for a new thread) - maybe some of the Wal-Mart employees should go to work for the supermarkets at $11/hour without benefits, allowing the markets to lower their prices and be competitive. See, I can solve anything!

sh*t, oh well...

That''s why the supermarkets are striking. The owners have said that they are not going to remove benefits or wages for current employees, but that they are going to put a freeze on hiring new high wage employees with benefits. New hires are going to be lower wage without benefits so that the stores can compete with Wal-Mart superstores (Wal-Marts with grocery stores in them) on pricing.

I think the cost is too high. I would rather pay 20 cents more on a $1.50 item to support a store that gives benefits to its employees and pays its employees a wage they can live on or raise a family on.

Back on off topic:

I believe that it is possible under specific circumstances to have as high a death count in CA due to a 6.5 earthquake as in Iran. The circumstances under which this could take place are obviously narrower, due to better infrastructure and training, but it could still happen with the right timing and location.

The very nature of earthquakes are chaotic and thus comparing them, even ones of similar magnitude, is ludicrous. You know there are different types right? (quick and jarring vs. slow rolling etc.) Also the composition of the land affected can make a huge difference.

I believe that it is possible under specific circumstances to have as high a death count in CA due to a 6.5 earthquake as in Iran. The circumstances under which this could take place are obviously narrower, due to better infrastructure and training, but it could still happen with the right timing and location.

Perhaps. Not likely though. Even the great SF quake of 1906 had, at highest estimate, 3000 casualties out of a population of 400,000. That was a quake in the range of 7.8 to 8.3 in magnitude.

Is it just possible that better construction, better materials, better infrastructure, and better rescue capabilities might actually result in fewer casualties in the case of natural disaster?

Of course, I have never denied that. Im just telling you thats half the picture.

If the Northridge 6.2 earthquake had been during rush hour the number of deaths would have skyrocketed with all the freeway collapses. If it was during the Christmas season where the Northridge Mall was jam packed when the parking garage collapsed you could then increase the death toll dramatically again.

Would it have reached 20,000? Well, I cant imagine so. However, just because I purposefully limit my imagination (its too scary to believe it could happen) doesnt mean it couldnt happen.

Would it have reached 20,000? Well, I cant imagine so. However, just because I purposefully limit my imagination (its too scary to believe it could happen) doesnt mean it couldnt happen.

Fang, I''m sorry, but it couldn''t. Something like 70% of the buildings in Bam collapsed because of the earthquake. Comparable-sized quakes in the US simply cannot do that kind of damage, because we don''t build our structures based on centuries-old standards.