Yeah, Cambodia probably had the most.  Too bad it wasn't upward social mobility.

"Yell. No the quintiles are each 20% band of wealth in the society. Its on absolute scale at any point in time, not relevant to the past."

No.  If our eeevvvvvvull society's poorest 1/5th someday range from $0-$70k that would be awesome progress from our current situation.  That's what I'm getting at.

"Stop making things into a EU vs US battle. The subject was never meant to pit the two as enemies. But asks 'What do Americans think is fair'?"

There's two kinds of people in the world and you disparaged the choices of the American portion.  So then I look to the experience of the other kind

Since the 1930s this country has allowed and encouraged the working man to cease to be a wage hireling and, with a vehicle easily within reach, become an entrepreneur to wealthy clients living outside the city...and by developing his skills, become a boss of crews of working men with several trucks, and himself become wealthy.  Not many plumbers on welfare in the United States.   

And with the growth of small business we have the growth of service agents who help small businesses.  And the sales of office equipment. And the development of software and electronics to facilitate their business.   And the service agents who maintain those items.  Even when you have a massive phone corporation or computer corporation manufacturing, designing and selling these items, it helps the corporation to sell franchises to citizens who move up in the world.

If the focus of the state, is instead, to say "how do we keep the plumber happy AS A CLOCKPUNCHER" we knock the engine of growth out of whack, which is why the caring sharing continent of Europe has countries where 8% unemployment or 12% unemployment is the norm.  It would be better if you had more rich people and 5% unemployment.

An American system where you are free to push yourself towards the lifestyle you want to achieve is preferrable to an "egalitarian" system where you will be well taken care of in 'your place' your whole life

even if you wanted to move up

BTW if you want to move 2000 km away and open your own business...your "caring" system provides no more support than the eeeeevul US model...

>>1. A woman does not have to be aroused to lubricate. They can lubricate merely as a response to penetration, a bodily defense mechanism from harm.<<

And you don't need to use your hands to wiggle your ears.  People can wiggle their ears without using their hands.

About as common I suspect.

>>2. It is very difficult to deeply penetrate a woman if she hasn't lubricated, and I imagine it would hurt the man as well. I doubt he would be able to finish the act if she didn't lubricate.<<

Since there's so much bitching about not enough foreplay, I doubt that is true.

>>3. There are alternatives to vaginal lubrication, such as saliva. Also, saliva is intended to neutralize the acidity of the mouth.<<

I could argue that one but we'd both get banned.

"You'll probably get a variety of answers, but few of them would name contemporary politicians. My answer, of course, is there is no morality. What you call morality is actually a list of rules that owe their existence to a combination of our social nature, culture, and/or religion."

then how can you straighten me out if what I said wasn't "wrong"?

>>Yell, yes but for upward social mobility either people must also go down... or you need ever greater number of poor immigrants to undertake the work of the bottom quintile.<<

False.

The bottom "quintile" means nothing more than "that equal fifth of the population whose wealth is lowest".  There is absolutely no requirement that anybody move down at all.
In fact what you see in developing countries is the definition of lowest wealth quintile move steadily upwards.  Whereas in 1810 that bottom fifth might have made 0-$25000 adjusted for inflation, today it might hit $30,000 for a family of four.

My point in posting it is to show that the United States enjoys --or has until now, enjoyed - a broad freedom of citizens to define their own circumstances.

Wealth is different of course to the movement of money. I could make 1 million dollars a year, rent a car, rent a house, own just 2 suits, and spend all my money in restaurants, on holidays, on dating women, etc. I'd make a million but have no wealth. The 40% who have just 0.3% of the wealth don't all make a million bucks a year, that's pretty certain. However, just because they have no 'wealth' it doesn't mean they are cash poor - just asset limited.

>>The 1968 model can be explained quite sensibly. I am 25. I have just finished my degree and have just started. $10000 job. By 1978 I am 35 and make $25000 and part own my home. By 1988 I am on $50000 have paid my mortgage and am about to buy a Lexus. By 1998 I am 55, make $90000 and have an investment portfolio.

It isn't actually modelling social mobility really. The study is a fail unless you take only 1 year holds and record where they end up.<<

Possibly...but what's the complaint against it, again?  If it's possible to do that, why worrya bout where you start?

and it's a lot more than 84% when you consider the movie rights to their life story, the insurance payments on the movie and the servicing of that insurance contract.

That's not a joke. I just created wealth out of nothing.  It's silly only because I pitched it to YOU, who have nothing, instead of millionaires, who might throw something behind it.* Do it enough, you got an industry.  Then it needs lobbyists ($) and ethical advisors to the lobbyists ($$) and probably studies of the failures of ethical counseling to the industry ($$$).

* oh yeah? WTF is "Atlas Shrugged: The Movie"?**

** I'd rather watch Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Lauren Bacall and Michael Gambon sip whiskey in a studio and READ Atlas Shrugged than this movie , but it still got made

good thing the IDF didn't catch on or it would have hit their boat with napalm.
rightly so, this time

"The FBI investigated whether any inappropriate behavior occurred, but no formal allegations of wrongdoing were leveled."

= Obama tried to blackmail them but they were Republican so they actually jump naked off a yacht for the fun of the swim, as opposed to Democrats who are building up to something freaky.

"Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the most senior GOP lawmaker on the Israel trip, censured the 30 lawmakers the morning after the incident, saying they were distracting from the mission of the trip, according to Politico." 

They should have thrown fruit at him since he has no authority over any of them, and really, if they are there to jump naked in the Sea of Galilee it's fine, but if they're in a foriegn country on a "mission" without permission from the State Dept. they're really violating the Logan Act.

"Yup, my distaste for Republicans is only outweighed by my distaste for religious people and their outdated views and beliefs." 

And I don't like the outdated views and beliefs of secularists, cause if you declare some politician is the highest moral authority you're basically rebuilding the Reich.

that ignores the fact that street crime is fun as hell

that's why they make video games of street crime and make 50 sequels and ripoffs

and not one "Insurance Adjustment: Bedford Falls"

/me raises fist, bows head