PDA

View Full Version : The Great Divergence - Income Inequality and the new gilded era



Wei Wu Wei
09-07-2010, 05:19 PM
Read it all:


In 1915, a statistician at the University of Wisconsin named Willford I. King published The Wealth and Income of the People of the United States, the most comprehensive study of its kind to date. The United States was displacing Great Britain as the world's wealthiest nation, but detailed information about its economy was not yet readily available; the federal government wouldn't start collecting such data in any systematic way until the 1930s. One of King's purposes was to reassure the public that all Americans were sharing in the country's newfound wealth.

King was somewhat troubled to find that the richest 1 percent possessed about 15 percent of the nation's income. (A more authoritative subsequent calculation puts the figure slightly higher, at about 18 percent.)

This was the era in which the accumulated wealth of America's richest families—the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, the Carnegies—helped prompt creation of the modern income tax, lest disparities in wealth turn the United States into a European-style aristocracy. The socialist movement was at its historic peak, a wave of anarchist bombings was terrorizing the nation's industrialists, and President Woodrow Wilson's attorney general, Alexander Palmer, would soon stage brutal raids on radicals of every stripe. In American history, there has never been a time when class warfare seemed more imminent.

That was when the richest 1 percent accounted for 18 percent of the nation's income. Today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income. What caused this to happen? Over the next two weeks, I'll try to answer that question by looking at all potential explanations—race, gender, the computer revolution, immigration, trade, government policies, the decline of labor, compensation policies on Wall Street and in executive suites, and education. Then I'll explain why people who say we don't need to worry about income inequality (there aren't many of them) are wrong.

Income inequality in the United States has not worsened steadily since 1915. It dropped a bit in the late teens, then started climbing again in the 1920s, reaching its peak just before the 1929 crash. The trend then reversed itself. Incomes started to become more equal in the 1930s and then became dramatically more equal in the 1940s. Income distribution remained roughly stable through the postwar economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s. Economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have termed this midcentury era the "Great Compression." The deep nostalgia for that period felt by the World War II generation—the era of Life magazine and the bowling league—reflects something more than mere sentimentality. Assuming you were white, not of draft age, and Christian, there probably was no better time to belong to America's middle class.

The Great Compression ended in the 1970s. Wages stagnated, inflation raged, and by the decade's end, income inequality had started to rise. Income inequality grew through the 1980s, slackened briefly at the end of the 1990s, and then resumed with a vengeance in the aughts. In his 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal, the Nobel laureate, Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the post-1979 epoch the "Great Divergence."

It's generally understood that we live in a time of growing income inequality, but "the ordinary person is not really aware of how big it is," Krugman told me. During the late 1980s and the late 1990s, the United States experienced two unprecedentedly long periods of sustained economic growth—the "seven fat years" and the " long boom." Yet from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes, an outcome that left many economists scratching their heads.

Here is a snapshot of income distribution during the past 100 years:

http://i54.tinypic.com/2qv62e0.gif

Why don't Americans pay more attention to growing income disparity? One reason may be our enduring belief in social mobility. Economic inequality is less troubling if you live in a country where any child, no matter how humble his or her origins, can grow up to be president. In a survey of 27 nations conducted from 1998 to 2001, the country where the highest proportion agreed with the statement "people are rewarded for intelligence and skill" was, of course, the United States. (69 percent). But when it comes to real as opposed to imagined social mobility, surveys find less in the United States than in much of (what we consider) the class-bound Old World. France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Spain—not to mention some newer nations like Canada and Australia—are all places where your chances of rising from the bottom are better than they are in the land of Horatio Alger's Ragged Dick.

All my life I've heard Latin America described as a failed society (or collection of failed societies) because of its grotesque maldistribution of wealth. Peasants in rags beg for food outside the high walls of opulent villas, and so on. But according to the Central Intelligence Agency (whose patriotism I hesitate to question), income distribution in the United States is more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador. Income inequality is actually declining in Latin America even as it continues to increase in the United States. Economically speaking, the richest nation on earth is starting to resemble a banana republic. The main difference is that the United States is big enough to maintain geographic distance between the villa-dweller and the beggar. As Ralston Thorpe tells his St. Paul's classmate, the investment banker Sherman McCoy, in Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities: "You've got to insulate, insulate, insulate."

In 1915, King wrote, "It is easy to find a man in almost any line of employment who is twice as efficient as another employee,"but it is very rare to find one who is ten times as efficient. It is common, however, to see one man possessing not ten times but a thousand times the wealth of his neighbor. … Is the middle class doomed to extinction and shall we soon find the handful of plutocrats, the modern barons of wealth, lined up squarely in opposition to the propertyless masses with no buffer between to lessen the chances of open battle? With the middle class gone and the laborer condemned to remain a lifelong wage-earner with no hope of attaining wealth or even a competence in his old age, all the conditions are ripe for a crowning class-conflict equaling in intensity and bitterness anything pictured by the most radical follower of Karl Marx. Is this condition soon coming to pass? [emphasis his]

In the end, King concluded it wasn't. Income distribution in the United States, he found, was more equal than in Prussia, France, and the United Kingdom. King was no socialist. Redistributing income to the poor, he wrote, "would merely mean more rapid multiplication of the lowest and least desirable classes," who remained, "from the reproductive standpoint, on the low point of their four-footed ancestors." A Malthusian, he believed in population control. Income inequality in the United States could be addressed by limiting immigration (King deplored "low-standard alien invaders") and by discouraging excessive breeding among the poor ("eugenicists are just beginning to impress upon us the absurd folly of breeding great troops of paupers, defectives and criminals to be a burden upon organized society").

Today, incomes in the U.S. are more unequal than in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, not less so. Eugenics (thankfully) has fallen out of fashion, and the immigration debate has become (somewhat) more polite. As for income inequality, it's barely entered the national political debate. Indeed, the evidence from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections suggests that even mild economic populism was a loser for Democrats.

But income inequality is a topic of huge importance to American society and therefore a subject of large and growing interest to a host of economists, political scientists, and other wonky types. Except for a few Libertarian outliers (whose views we'll examine later), these experts agree that the country's growing income inequality is deeply worrying. Even Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board chairman and onetime Ayn Rand acolyte, has registered concern. "This is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing," Greenspan said in 2005. Greenspan's Republican-appointed successor, Ben Bernanke, has also fretted about income inequality.

Yet few of these experts have much idea how to reverse the trend. That's because almost no one can agree about what's causing it. This week and next, I will detail and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of various prominent theories as to what has brought about the income inequality boom of the last three decades. At the same time, I'll try to convey the magnitude of its effects on American life. The Great Divergence may represent the most significant change in American society in your lifetime—and it's not a change for the better. Let's see if we can figure out what got us here.

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266027/

lacarnut
09-07-2010, 05:51 PM
Income inequality is great. You work, you save, you don't go asshole to appetite in debt and when you retire you have a nice nest egg saved up. I don't need an idiot like Krugman to tell me what is good for me. If you want equality, go to France, Germany, EU, etc. where your employer hires you for life, your taxes are high, you have health care provided free, you live in a matchbox apartment/house, you ride a bike or train to work. Screw that. It is rather ironic that everyone wants to come to the land of opportunity and high paying jobs while not so much in these other countries. BTW, if you are worried about income inequality, get off your dead ass and do something about it like get a second job, pay down debt, etc. The American dream is still alive and well; dipshits like this author can not change his liberal spouting.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-07-2010, 06:17 PM
Let me ask you something, did EVERYBODY's standard of living improve during this time period???


If so (and the answer is yes) then what the problem??? Jealousy????

Rockntractor
09-07-2010, 06:32 PM
Let me ask you something, did EVERYBODY's standard of living improve during this time period???


If so (and the answer is yes) then what the problem??? Jealousy????

Wei Wei has a problem with middle class guilt, he isn't jealous because he does alright, but his liberal mentors have made him feel guilty for those that are to lazy to achieve.

lacarnut
09-07-2010, 06:39 PM
Let me ask you something, did EVERYBODY's standard of living improve during this time period???


If so (and the answer is yes) then what the problem??? Jealousy????

Jealousy and a few screws loose.

PoliCon
09-07-2010, 07:13 PM
AH! CLASS ENVY!! The funniest thing about class envy is that the political class preach it to disguise and distract from their power grabs.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-07-2010, 07:16 PM
AH! CLASS ENVY!! The funniest thing about class envy is that the political class preach it to disguise and distract from their power grabs.



You noticed that???? :eek:

NJCardFan
09-07-2010, 07:41 PM
So, according to Wee Wee and his ilk, a ditch digger should be paid the same as a CEO. :rolleyes: Income is earned kiddies. If you feel you aren't being paid what you believe you are worth, you are free to negotiate with whomever you wish.

PoliCon
09-07-2010, 07:43 PM
You noticed that???? :eek:

yup. and the ones who preach it loudest are people who have inherited wealth. :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
09-07-2010, 07:50 PM
yup. and the ones who preach it loudest are people who have inherited wealth. :rolleyes:

Or married it...

PoliCon
09-07-2010, 07:51 PM
Or married it...

true! :D How is John Kerry doing lately?

warpig
09-07-2010, 08:10 PM
Some where some one is alway at the front of the line. It is and remains the natural order of things. Someone is always smarter, richer, better looking, faster, more organized etc. The jealousy that these people have is based upon their own inability to move to the front of the line, instead they try and pull those at the front back to where they are just because they can't keep up. This of course stifles new innovation and progress because who wants to do something for free?

Wei Wu Wei
09-07-2010, 08:11 PM
Let me ask you something, did EVERYBODY's standard of living improve during this time period???


If so (and the answer is yes) then what the problem??? Jealousy????

The problem is levels of inequality comparable to a 2nd world country.


Wei Wei has a problem with middle class guilt, he isn't jealous because he does alright, but his liberal mentors have made him feel guilty for those that are to lazy to achieve.

middle class guilt? I was poor growing up. no one in my family had gone to college, only a few finished high school. nothings been handed to me (except of course opportunities and options that helped along the way, helping to finance college for example)


So, according to Wee Wee and his ilk, a ditch digger should be paid the same as a CEO. :rolleyes:

no. wow. big no.


Income is earned kiddies. If you feel you aren't being paid what you believe you are worth, you are free to negotiate with whomever you wish.

Except negotiating with "whomever you wish" won't do anything will it? No, only if you negotiate with those with power, those who make decisions after all of your "negotiating".

Wei Wu Wei
09-07-2010, 08:12 PM
http://img11.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i1451465_greatdiv1.png
http://img11.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i1451466_greatdiv2.png
http://img11.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i1451467_greatdiv3.png
http://img11.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i1451468_greatdiv4.png

Wei Wu Wei
09-07-2010, 08:16 PM
http://img11.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i1451469_greatdiv5.png
http://img11.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i1451470_greatdiv6.png
http://img11.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i1451471_greatdiv7.png
http://img11.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i1451472_greatdiv8.png

MrsSmith
09-07-2010, 08:21 PM
WeeWee. you're missing the point of the replies, which is "SO??" Thanks to our system, everyone is better off. No one that thinks it all through wants to go to a more even system because we'll ALL have less comfort.
It's foolish to be upset about the rich, anyway. At least, the conservative rich. They give a lot of money away to all kinds of charities. The Dims give away a lot less, of course...

Oh, and there was a recent study showing that single, childless women earn more than men of the same age because so many more women go to college these days.

Wei Wu Wei
09-07-2010, 08:25 PM
"So?"


Why don't Americans pay more attention to growing income disparity? One reason may be our enduring belief in social mobility. Economic inequality is less troubling if you live in a country where any child, no matter how humble his or her origins, can grow up to be president. In a survey of 27 nations conducted from 1998 to 2001, the country where the highest proportion agreed with the statement "people are rewarded for intelligence and skill" was, of course, the United States. (69 percent). But when it comes to real as opposed to imagined social mobility, surveys find less in the United States than in much of (what we consider) the class-bound Old World. France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Spain—not to mention some newer nations like Canada and Australia—are all places where your chances of rising from the bottom are better than they are in the land of Horatio Alger's Ragged Dick.

MrsSmith
09-07-2010, 08:30 PM
"So?"

Bull. My mom was from one of those countries. College is something you have to earn you way into, otherwise you're stuck in a dead-end job forever with no option of returning to get an education.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-07-2010, 08:34 PM
"So?"


Why don't Americans pay more attention to growing income disparity? One reason may be our enduring belief in social mobility. Economic inequality is less troubling if you live in a country where any child, no matter how humble his or her origins, can grow up to be president. In a survey of 27 nations conducted from 1998 to 2001, the country where the highest proportion agreed with the statement "people are rewarded for intelligence and skill" was, of course, the United States. (69 percent). But when it comes to real as opposed to imagined social mobility, surveys find less in the United States than in much of (what we consider) the class-bound Old World. France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Spain—not to mention some newer nations like Canada and Australia—are all places where your chances of rising from the bottom are better than they are in the land of Horatio Alger's Ragged Dick.

And yet a black child of a single parent DID become President.

And your income mobility figures are not valid. They use varying standards of measurement and mean nothing. - At least if you are quoting the "study" I believe you are (and from the info given, you are).

Gingersnap
09-07-2010, 08:45 PM
Ah, the famed "quintiles". I've been back and forth through most (but not all) of them as have many Americans. It's not a static state.

I see the equally fabled gender gap is also noted. But there is no gender gap between women and men who don't have kids or who confine their reproduction to one kid.

Blacks certainly are disadvantaged in income but not all blacks. Those who stay in school, curb reproduction, and formally marry before or shortly after having children have distinct advantages similar to whites and Hispanics who follow the same path.

hazlnut
09-07-2010, 08:47 PM
AH! CLASS ENVY!! The funniest thing about class envy is that the political class preach it to disguise and distract from their power grabs.

The only thing funnier is middle/lower class folks defending 0% estate tax... as if it has anything to do with them...

And even funnier than that: we are duplicating the exact economic situation that lead up to the great depression...

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Isn't that funny, Poli!!:o:o:(:(

Everybody's laughing, ha-ha-ha-ha, let the Teatards take over, they'll fix everything.... Cut the taxes, deregulate the market... It worked so well in the 1920s!!

Constitutionally Speaking
09-07-2010, 08:49 PM
The only thing funnier is middle/lower class folks defending 0% estate tax... as if it has anything to do with them...

And even funnier than that: we are duplicating the exact economic situation that lead up to the great depression...

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Isn't that funny, Poli!!:o:o:(:(

Everybody's laughing, ha-ha-ha-ha, let the Teatards take over, they'll fix everything.... Cut the taxes, deregulate the market... It work so well in the 1920s!!



Why do you look at things as if they have to help someone personally in order for them to support it.


I would support it simply because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO - even if it HURT me personally. - I know that is a hard concept for you leftists to understand, but it is a thing called integrity.


And we ARE duplicating the things that led up to the great depression - that is what we Conservatives are trying to STOP - OBama is duplicating the errors we made back then! After the stock market crash of 1929, we were RECOVERING - and quite rapidly UNTIL government started spending and interfering with the free markets.

Unemployment had DROPPED from 9% at it's peak after the Crash, and plummeted to 6.3 in 6 short months. THEN Government stepped in to "SAVE" the economy!!!! - and 20% PLUS unemployment was soon on the way.


Much like today - where Obama's OWN economists predicted that we would witness around 8% unemployment IF WE DID NOTHING. Instead he meddled and we got 10% - and it is going to get worse.

NJCardFan
09-07-2010, 08:50 PM
The only thing funnier is middle/lower class folks defending 0% estate tax... as if it has anything to do with them...

And even funnier than that: we are duplicating the exact economic situation that lead up to the great depression...

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Isn't that funny, Poli!!:o:o:(:(

Everybody's laughing, ha-ha-ha-ha, let the Teatards take over, they'll fix everything.... Cut the taxes, deregulate the market... It worked so well in the 1920s!!



Why don't you man up and meet me in the dome smart guy.

Rockntractor
09-07-2010, 08:51 PM
The only thing funnier is middle/lower class folks defending 0% estate tax... as if it has anything to do with them...

And even funnier than that: we are duplicating the exact economic situation that lead up to the great depression...

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Isn't that funny, Poli!!:o:o:(:(

Everybody's laughing, ha-ha-ha-ha, let the Teatards take over, they'll fix everything.... Cut the taxes, deregulate the market... It work so well in the 1920s!!


If you worked your fingers to the bone with your father like many farmers do only to lose the farm to taxes when he died you would have a much different opinion of this. This has happened to many very simple living individuals.

PoliCon
09-07-2010, 08:54 PM
The only thing funnier is middle/lower class folks defending 0% estate tax... as if it has anything to do with them...

And even funnier than that: we are duplicating the exact economic situation that lead up to the great depression...

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Isn't that funny, Poli!!

Everybody's laughing, ha-ha-ha-ha, let the Teatards take over, they'll fix everything.... Cut the taxes, deregulate the market... It work so well in the 1920s!!



You dumbass - what lead up to the great depression was massive and intrusive government intervention in the economic process. :rolleyes: You really should read up on the 1920s and discover that things were not nearly as bad as the progressives painted them. The standard of living was VERY high - for everyone. Coolidge did exactly the right thing economically - which is why there was recovery. It wasn't until Hoover started meddling - meddling that FDR magnified which of course exacerbated the economic situation making things WORSE. There is a reason why the US was the last western nation to recover from 'the great depression.' :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
09-07-2010, 08:55 PM
If you worked your fingers to the bone with your father like many farmers do only to lose the farm to taxes when he died you would have a much different opinion of this. This has happened to many very simple living individuals.

The sad thing is that artards like Hazldick don't seem to understand that the Great Depression wouldn't have lasted as long as it did had the government got out of the way.


It work so well in the 1920s
The 20's were actually very good. The crash was in '29 you idiot.

Wei Wu Wei
09-07-2010, 08:56 PM
Ah, the famed "quintiles". I've been back and forth through most (but not all) of them as have many Americans. It's not a static state.

I see the equally fabled gender gap is also noted. But there is no gender gap between women and men who don't have kids or who confine their reproduction to one kid.

Blacks certainly are disadvantaged in income but not all blacks. Those who stay in school, curb reproduction, and formally marry before or shortly after having children have distinct advantages similar to whites and Hispanics who follow the same path.

Do you believe that a system or set of policies that harms blacks more than whites, or women more than men is justified as long as any of them are able to rise up?

The implicit assumption is that the article or I am claiming that we live in a fuedal society with absolutely no chance of mobility, that's not the case. The argument is that relative to other wealthy nations, we have FAR lower rates of upward social mobility, rates that are comparable to developing nations instead.

PoliCon
09-07-2010, 08:58 PM
Do you believe that a system or set of policies that harms blacks more than whites, or women more than men is justified as long as any of them are able to rise up?

The implicit assumption is that the article or I am claiming that we live in a fuedal society with absolutely no chance of mobility, that's not the case. The argument is that relative to other wealthy nations, we have FAR lower rates of upward social mobility, rates that are comparable to developing nations instead.

No - but a feudal society is EXACTLY what you people on the left want to install.

warpig
09-07-2010, 09:07 PM
we have FAR lower rates of upward social mobility

That is because the govenment brings those at the front down to the level of those who can't perform well enough to move up.

Zathras
09-07-2010, 09:09 PM
http://chzderp.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/0b389b6a-024a-44e4-a481-9049cd807b87.jpg

Fixed for accuracy....again

Oh, and Derpnut, you're showing yourself to be a fucking coward every time you post and not respond to the call out in the Dome.

NJCardFan
09-07-2010, 09:10 PM
Do you believe that a system or set of policies that harms blacks more than whites, or women more than men is justified as long as any of them are able to rise up?

This is, barr none, the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-07-2010, 09:13 PM
Do you believe that a system or set of policies that harms blacks more than whites, or women more than men is justified as long as any of them are able to rise up?

The implicit assumption is that the article or I am claiming that we live in a fuedal society with absolutely no chance of mobility, that's not the case. The argument is that relative to other wealthy nations, we have FAR lower rates of upward social mobility, rates that are comparable to developing nations instead.


The basis for your statement is not true - and to the extent it is true is because most of those nations don't punish businesses the way we do.

Jfor
09-07-2010, 09:24 PM
Do you believe that a system or set of policies that harms blacks more than whites, or women more than men is justified as long as any of them are able to rise up?

The implicit assumption is that the article or I am claiming that we live in a fuedal society with absolutely no chance of mobility, that's not the case. The argument is that relative to other wealthy nations, we have FAR lower rates of upward social mobility, rates that are comparable to developing nations instead.

Bullshit. If someone is willing to work hard AND be smart with their money, I.E. not get into massive amounts of debt, then they can better themselves. As long as the government is willing to give people money for simply being lazy bums, then they will not improve their situations. Compared to other countries, the U.S. has MORE chances for upward mobility as long as the government stays out of the way.

Gingersnap
09-07-2010, 09:27 PM
[SIZE="3"]The only thing funnier is middle/lower class folks defending 0% estate tax... as if it has anything to do with them...


LOL! What a knee-slapper! You're right - it's not like any of us rednecks own farms, ranches, or businesses that could be affected! Heck, what is the going price of a used combine these days? And tractors, trailers, waste processing systems, and silage storage and processing equipment? What's a million or two between friends?

It's not like hundreds or thousands of expensive animals will break anybody come tax time, right? And that fallow land? Well, everybody knows that Uncle Sam just winks at that.

After all, the real farmers and ranchers all live in New York and get big, fat subsidy checks, right? Besides, they can all afford excellent accounting firms to shelter their assets.

Not like the "play" farmers and ranchers who inherit land and work two jobs to pay off the debt and get operating loans, right? You know, the ones who usually don't make a profit for the first 5 years after inheritance and who live on the edge, year to year thereafter.

Yeah, nobody outside of the top 1% income earners should worry about their kids' inheritance or worry about their own. After all, we can always sell off land and assets to make things right. That's what our grandparents would have wanted. :rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
09-07-2010, 09:55 PM
LOL! What a knee-slapper! You're right - it's not like any of us rednecks own farms, ranches, or businesses that could be affected! Heck, what is the going price of a used combine these days? And tractors, trailers, waste processing systems, and silage storage and processing equipment? What's a million or two between friends?

It's not like hundreds or thousands of expensive animals will break anybody come tax time, right? And that fallow land? Well, everybody knows that Uncle Sam just winks at that.

After all, the real farmers and ranchers all live in New York and get big, fat subsidy checks, right? Besides, they can all afford excellent accounting firms to shelter their assets.

Not like the "play" farmers and ranchers who inherit land and work two jobs to pay off the debt and get operating loans, right? You know, the ones who usually don't make a profit for the first 5 years after inheritance and who live on the edge, year to year thereafter.

Yeah, nobody outside of the top 1% income earners should worry about their kids' inheritance or worry about their own. After all, we can always sell off land and assets to make things right. That's what our grandparents would have wanted. :rolleyes:


Now you did it! You went and brought reality to the discussion!!! :mad:

Wei Wu Wei
09-07-2010, 10:30 PM
Why do you look at things as if they have to help someone personally in order for them to support it.


I would support it simply because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO - even if it HURT me personally. - I know that is a hard concept for you leftists to understand, but it is a thing called integrity.


And we ARE duplicating the things that led up to the great depression - that is what we Conservatives are trying to STOP - OBama is duplicating the errors we made back then! After the stock market crash of 1929, we were RECOVERING - and quite rapidly UNTIL government started spending and interfering with the free markets.

Unemployment had DROPPED from 9% at it's peak after the Crash, and plummeted to 6.3 in 6 short months. THEN Government stepped in to "SAVE" the economy!!!! - and 20% PLUS unemployment was soon on the way.


Much like today - where Obama's OWN economists predicted that we would witness around 8% unemployment IF WE DID NOTHING. Instead he meddled and we got 10% - and it is going to get worse.

How would you characterize the economy of the 50's and 60's?

Wei Wu Wei
09-07-2010, 10:31 PM
No - but a feudal society is EXACTLY what you people on the left want to install.

Not at all, I don't know where you get your information from but none of the 'people on the left' that I talk to want a feudal system. This is just silly

Rockntractor
09-07-2010, 10:41 PM
Not at all, I don't know where you get your information from but none of the 'people on the left' that I talk to want a feudal system. This is just silly

How many times do you have to tell a lie before you start believing it yourself?

Wei Wu Wei
09-07-2010, 10:42 PM
The basis for your statement is not true - and to the extent it is true is because most of those nations don't punish businesses the way we do.

I'm going to guess you mean taxation when you say "punishment", and I'm going to guess you are referring to smaller corporate tax rates.

We have higher corporate tax rates, but individual capital gains taxes are significantly lower than in European countries. Our capital gains tax rates are half, or less, than that of major European nations.

Likewise, wealthy individuals tend to hold most of their wealth in the form of capital gains, rather than extremely high salary or bonuses that count as income, so this tax scale means they get taxed significantly less than in European nations.

PoliCon
09-07-2010, 10:53 PM
Not at all, I don't know where you get your information from but none of the 'people on the left' that I talk to want a feudal system. This is just silly

Sure you do. Your policies and agenda prove it. Claim otherwise all you like - the results of your policy choices are clear.

Gingersnap
09-07-2010, 11:07 PM
Not at all, I don't know where you get your information from but none of the 'people on the left' that I talk to want a feudal system. This is just silly

Not so silly, really. If government is the "Lord" and most of the assets are owned or controlled by the government through law and regulation, then the citizens do become credible stand-ins for serfs who must work the greater percentage of the year to pay the "Lord" his rents, fees, duties, and taxes.

The interference in personal life is also somewhat similar. Although the feudal Lord deferred to the Church in social issues, that's not too much different from the government deferring to popular fad-driven "experts" today.

We aren't a feudal society, obviously, but Hayek isn't much wrong.

warpig
09-07-2010, 11:27 PM
The only thing funnier is middle/lower class folks defending 0% estate tax... as if it has anything to do with them...

Liberals always think that everone elses money is theirs to do with what they want.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-08-2010, 06:51 AM
How would you characterize the economy of the 50's and 60's?

Post- war with us being the only industrialized nation not devastated by WWII. Huge pent up demand and a sense of optimism that comes with such a monumental victory. There was no competition to American industry. In addition, and of HUGE importance, we also had a whole demographic category of immense proportions born - the baby boomers. This created a huge new group of consumers, creating a huge demand that the relatively few productive workers had to fill. Few workers, HUGE demand = economic prosperity for those workers. Huge demand and no competition = economic prosperity for those companies meeting that demand.

NJCardFan
09-08-2010, 09:35 AM
Post- war with us being the only industrialized nation not devastated by WWII. Huge pent up demand and a sense of optimism that comes with such a monumental victory. There was no competition to American industry. In addition, and of HUGE importance, we also had a whole demographic category of immense proportions born - the baby boomers. This created a huge new group of consumers, creating a huge demand that the relatively few productive workers had to fill. Few workers, HUGE demand = economic prosperity for those workers. Huge demand and no competition = economic prosperity for those companies meeting that demand.

Your facts are showing again. Also, the 60's brought massive social programs like welfare and food stamps. Thanks to Johnson, this created the current "moocher" class that 100% completely depends on the government for their needs. What's worse, is that these programs have no time limit. Some families have generation after generation on welfare with no need, or want, to leave the system. Then you have the next group: unskilled laborers. Unskilled labor is cheap and plentiful. Yet most unskilled labor is menial and hard. Why would anyone want to leave welfare, where all they have to do to get paid is convert oxygen into CO2? You also had something in the 50's that's completely lost in these times and that's a work ethic. People today, especially young people, feel that all they need to do is show up at their job, do nothing but breathe, and get paid $50 per hour. Ever go to a department store and try to get an employee to help you? Oy.

Wei Wu Wei
09-08-2010, 10:05 AM
Post- war with us being the only industrialized nation not devastated by WWII. Huge pent up demand and a sense of optimism that comes with such a monumental victory. There was no competition to American industry. In addition, and of HUGE importance, we also had a whole demographic category of immense proportions born - the baby boomers. This created a huge new group of consumers, creating a huge demand that the relatively few productive workers had to fill. Few workers, HUGE demand = economic prosperity for those workers. Huge demand and no competition = economic prosperity for those companies meeting that demand.

Except that, as the information i nthis thread demonstrates, economic growth and corporate success are not always tied to upward social mobility of workers.

The 50's and 60's had the largest increase of the middle class (the GI bill helped too, along with other commie legislation) while today we see a diminishing middle class.

How were the tax rates during this golden era of economic prosperity?

Constitutionally Speaking
09-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Except that, as the information i nthis thread demonstrates, economic growth and corporate success are not always tied to upward social mobility of workers.

The 50's and 60's had the largest increase of the middle class (the GI bill helped too, along with other commie legislation) while today we see a diminishing middle class.

How were the tax rates during this golden era of economic prosperity?


Lack of competition (because of WWII) and the HUGE demand allowed the tax rates and still companies could make money. Today those tax rates would make us uncompetitive - and YES economic growth & corporate success ARE tied to upward mobility of workers. The relationship is not a direct, causal one, but they ARE correlated. Corporate success IS a pre-requisite for worker success - You CANNOT have upward mobility for workers without corporate success.

But your "diminishing" middle class is simple a false assertion. REAL wages have increased (at least until 2009) for hourly workers.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-08-2010, 04:53 PM
I'm going to guess you mean taxation when you say "punishment", and I'm going to guess you are referring to smaller corporate tax rates.

We have higher corporate tax rates, but individual capital gains taxes are significantly lower than in European countries. Our capital gains tax rates are half, or less, than that of major European nations.

Likewise, wealthy individuals tend to hold most of their wealth in the form of capital gains, rather than extremely high salary or bonuses that count as income, so this tax scale means they get taxed significantly less than in European nations.


Capital gains and corporate tax rates are entirely different animals - and until recently our capital gains tax rates were NOT significantly lower than other countries' rates.

Corporate income taxes will affect hiring and wages for ESTABLISHED corporations in their core businesses.


Capital Gains taxes will affect NEW business creation and creations of new divisions of established companies. This is what drives FUTURE growth in the economy and FUTURE high paying jobs. Until recently these taxes were NOT lower than other developed nations and combined with the other burdens placed on American industry these high rates make us uncompetitive - and/unattractive for investment HERE.

malloc
09-08-2010, 08:23 PM
Except that, as the information i nthis thread demonstrates, economic growth and corporate success are not always tied to upward social mobility of workers.

The 50's and 60's had the largest increase of the middle class (the GI bill helped too, along with other commie legislation) while today we see a diminishing middle class.

How were the tax rates during this golden era of economic prosperity?

We've had this discussion before. I do believe I've already proven that prosperity during this time period was achieved in spite of the tax rates, not because of them. I thought we settled this, but that was quite a few bongs ago for you wasn't it?

You know what the difference is between an economist and an authoritarian statist? An economist can see what isn't there and what didn't happen. Had those tax rates remained lower, prosperity would have been even greater. War debts must be paid though.

warpig
09-08-2010, 08:29 PM
It takes more to create up ward social mobility of workers. There also has to be desire to move up, work extra, take on the extra responsibilities, get the education, etc. Most liberials think you should get the same as everyone else just for showing up. They never realize that everyone will then work down to the lowest common denominator. This was proven in the collective farms of the USSR during the 50's and 60's, that's why there were always food shortages in Russia, everyone did just what they had to, no more.

NJCardFan
09-08-2010, 09:04 PM
It takes more to create up ward social mobility of workers. There also has to be desire to move up, work extra, take on the extra responsibilities, get the education, etc. Most liberials think you should get the same as everyone else just for showing up. They never realize that everyone will then work down to the lowest common denominator. This was proven in the collective farms of the USSR during the 50's and 60's, that's why there were always food shortages in Russia, everyone did just what they had to, no more.
This is the problem with unions. There is no incentive to work harder in a union shop because the fuck ups will make the same money as those who work harder. As was said, the fuck ups tend to drag everyone else down.

Sonnabend
09-09-2010, 08:29 AM
Wei's article and comments translated": WAAH I want wealth redistributed, and I'm jealous cause they wont give me any :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
09-09-2010, 08:43 AM
Wei's article and comments translated": WAAH I want wealth redistributed, and I'm jealous cause they wont give me any :rolleyes:

That's pretty much it.

Wei Wu Wei
09-20-2010, 04:24 PM
Lack of competition (because of WWII) and the HUGE demand allowed the tax rates and still companies could make money. Today those tax rates would make us uncompetitive - and YES economic growth & corporate success ARE tied to upward mobility of workers. The relationship is not a direct, causal one, but they ARE correlated. Corporate success IS a pre-requisite for worker success - You CANNOT have upward mobility for workers without corporate success.

But your "diminishing" middle class is simple a false assertion. REAL wages have increased (at least until 2009) for hourly workers.

Really?

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b73/finktron/Random%20shit/Graphs%20Charts%20and%20Graphics/july05_cbo.png

Constitutionally Speaking
09-20-2010, 05:28 PM
Really?

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b73/finktron/Random%20shit/Graphs%20Charts%20and%20Graphics/july05_cbo.png


YES REALLY.

Your graph has the CBO as the source but it provides very little information otherwise. I CAN however tell you that they cherry picked the date. They took this just before the wages crashed under Jimmy Carter - when his liberal policies (which are VERY much like what Obama is now forcing on us again) literally DESTROYED real wages.

Since Reagan stabilized them, they have been growing - to the point that we now are back in the same range.

Remember these are REAL wages - which means they already have taken inflation into account - so people are better off now than in 1980 - and considerably so. When you compare them to the workers just after the war - they are better off still. And THAT is the context of the questions that were asked.

Your graph does nothing to show the middle class disappearing either. It simply shows that the wealthy have done well - but you forget that the wealthy consists of a different group of people each year. Many of the wealthy in one year revert to middle class the next year - and are replaced by former members of the middle or "lower" class.

lacarnut
09-20-2010, 05:33 PM
YES REALLY.

Your graph has the CBO as the source but it provides very little information otherwise. I CAN however tell you that they cherry picked the date. They took this just before the wages crashed under Jimmy Carter - when his liberal policies (which are VERY much like what Obama is now forcing on us again) literally DESTROYED real wages.

Since Reagan stabilized them, they have been growing - to the point that we now are back in the same range.

Remember these are REAL wages - which means they already have taken inflation into account - so people are better off now than in 1980 - and considerably so.

Poor WEE WEE. He gets his ass handed to him once again on a silver platter.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-20-2010, 07:00 PM
I can also tell by the graph that whoever put it out ABSOLUTELY had an agenda.

The flat line they show at the bottom to supposedly represent the middle class incomes, does not show anychanges at all. It SHOULD, at the left hand side be very high with an INCREDIBLY steep drop between the years 1979 and 1981. It should then show a period of stabilization and then near the last 1/3 of the graph, a very steep increase - pretty close to the shape that the rich line showed - just at a lower level (except that the "rich" graph did not have the steep decline in 1979-1981 and the middle class did.)

AmPat
09-20-2010, 10:49 PM
The only thing funnier is middle/lower class folks defending 0% estate tax... as if it has anything to do with them...

And even funnier than that: we are duplicating the exact economic situation that lead up to the great depression...
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Isn't that funny, Poli!!

Everybody's laughing, ha-ha-ha-ha, let the Teatards take over, they'll fix everything.... Cut the taxes, deregulate the market... It worked so well in the 1920s!!



Wait,,,,,Even funnier is idiots like you admitting that the party in charge is duplicating the Great Depression policies. Ha Ha. Funny right?

Who is in charge now?
Who was in charge then?

See any pattern?:rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
09-21-2010, 06:09 PM
Any response???

AmPat
09-21-2010, 08:05 PM
*Crickets*

Constitutionally Speaking
09-22-2010, 10:11 AM
I like how gullible these lefties are. They think if there is a graph, it is automatically valid - never mind if the graph actually matches the data it claims to be sourced from.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 01:02 PM
YES REALLY.

Your graph has the CBO as the source but it provides very little information otherwise. I CAN however tell you that they cherry picked the date. They took this just before the wages crashed under Jimmy Carter - when his liberal policies (which are VERY much like what Obama is now forcing on us again) literally DESTROYED real wages.

Since Reagan stabilized them, they have been growing - to the point that we now are back in the same range.

Remember these are REAL wages - which means they already have taken inflation into account - so people are better off now than in 1980 - and considerably so. When you compare them to the workers just after the war - they are better off still. And THAT is the context of the questions that were asked.

Your graph does nothing to show the middle class disappearing either. It simply shows that the wealthy have done well - but you forget that the wealthy consists of a different group of people each year. Many of the wealthy in one year revert to middle class the next year - and are replaced by former members of the middle or "lower" class.

The graph isn't talking about an average wage, which is what is used to support what you are saying. It's looking at wages of select groups , the top 1% and the middle 20%.

You're arguing against a different graph I suppose.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-22-2010, 07:43 PM
The graph isn't talking about an average wage, which is what is used to support what you are saying. It's looking at wages of select groups , the top 1% and the middle 20%.

You're arguing against a different graph I suppose.



Wei,that IS part of the problem - your graph does not actually allow me to trace the source tables but trust me - The middle 20% quintile wage rate was not flat in that period - it followed much the same pattern as the others.

I cannot any instance where your graph (the part representing the middle class) accurately represents ANY income quintile during that period.

If you could post the source so I can trace it back to the CBO study that is used, perhaps I could clarify.

It APPEARS that they simply took their cherry picked time (the PEAK of the Carter years - just before the income crash) and since wages have finally recovered to that level, they simply drew a straight line so-as not to show a similar pattern as the wealthy graph.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-23-2010, 12:05 PM
bump

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 12:24 PM
Of course the methodology affects the graph. 20% is simply more people, so the graph flattens out because variations average each other out. Dealing with 1% is far fewer people, so the numbers are more chaotic.

The point is that, for most people in the middle class, on average, wages have stagnated, while the top 1% has soared.

This is a fact, it's not just this one chart it's plain as day.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-23-2010, 12:49 PM
Of course the methodology affects the graph. 20% is simply more people, so the graph flattens out because variations average each other out. Dealing with 1% is far fewer people, so the numbers are more chaotic.

The point is that, for most people in the middle class, on average, wages have stagnated, while the top 1% has soared.

This is a fact, it's not just this one chart it's plain as day.


But they HAVEN'T stagnated - that is my point. They hit a peak back under Carter, then they fell so far that it has taken 30 years of pretty damn good growth to recover.

Being at the same point they were 30 years ago is NOT stagnation - if they had remained so THROUGHOUT those 30 years you would be correct, but they haven't. Since they bottomed out, the wages have been growing quite well.

That just shows you how HORRIBLE the policies of Jimmy Carter were - they were so bad it has taken 30 years to recover.

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 01:42 PM
You seem to be emphasizing Carter a lot, I'm interested. Which sort of policies that you attribute to Carter destroyed the economy? What did they do?

AmPat
09-23-2010, 11:25 PM
You seem to be emphasizing Carter a lot, I'm interested. Which sort of policies that you attribute to Carter destroyed the economy? What did they do?

Ask somebody who had a 21% mortgage rate back then.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-24-2010, 07:01 AM
You seem to be emphasizing Carter a lot, I'm interested. Which sort of policies that you attribute to Carter destroyed the economy? What did they do?

For ease of discussion, I will put forth just a few things that are pretty representative of the whole - and the disastrous results of just this small sampling should give you a clue as to how we STILL are paying for the lunacy of the Carter years - and you should note how similar Obama's policies are and why we are screwed if we don't put an end to them.

Well, let's start with the windfall profits tax.

First off, the very idea that a company, operating within the law, can make "excessive" profits is incredibly damaging, but let's ignore the psychological aspects of demonizing profits and move on to specific tangible results of policy driven by such ignorance. It ANNUALLY cost the oil companies around $50 MILLION in COMPLIANCE COST ALONE!. In addition it cost the federal government close to $15 million to collect the tax all for a net tax revenue increase of $40 million over 8 years. SO it was a paltry tool to raise revenue, but what was the toll on Domestic oil production?? Domestic exploration plummeted and we became more and more dependent on foreign oil sources and specifically the Middle East. Our vulnerability to OPEC was guaranteed and when they got mad at us, they cut off our oil - this set off a severe recession and gas lines that were miles long. Domestic oil production fell to its lowest level in 20 years - in an era of INCREASING DEMAND,soaring prices and short overall supply. That was just the short term consequences, long term - oil companies moved production overseas and they come back RELUCTANTLY - knowing that every time we have a change in political leadership they can be hit with those egregious taxes and regulations again. We are so incredibly bad in the stability of our policies in this area that it is deemed a better risk to go after resources in third-world areas. Given the resentment the left keeps stoking against oil companies and anyone else who dares make money, their assessment of the risks is justified.




Then let's move on to the "gas guzzler" tax, & the government paid rebates for small cars.

I won't belabor this as the consequences should be obvious.

This led to the introduction and popularization of the Japanese auto brands into the U.S. Our industry was slow to adjust, handicapped by the labor movement and bad management. They had their hands full as it was, but when the government actually paid people to buy from their competitors, AND penalized people for buying the domestic products, they were done for. They have never recovered.

AmPat
09-24-2010, 10:49 AM
Then let's move on to the "gas guzzler" tax, & the government paid rebates for small cars.

I won't belabor this as the consequences should be obvious.

This led to the introduction and popularization of the Japanese auto brands into the U.S. Our industry was slow to adjust, handicapped by the labor movement and bad management. They had their hands full as it was, but when the government actually paid people to buy from their competitors, AND penalized people for buying the domestic products, they were done for. They have never recovered.Up with the Prius! :rolleyes: We have been flooded with these boring, look alike cars ever since. It still makes me laugh when I see these kids spend big money to try to get these Japanese crap boxes to get out of their own way. Want to make it fast? Drop in a junkyard American V8 in it. Of course it won't last long if you do as it was designed to hold a Singer sewing machine in the engine bay.:cool:

Wei Wu Wei
09-24-2010, 03:02 PM
But they HAVEN'T stagnated - that is my point. They hit a peak back under Carter, then they fell so far that it has taken 30 years of pretty damn good growth to recover.

Being at the same point they were 30 years ago is NOT stagnation - if they had remained so THROUGHOUT those 30 years you would be correct, but they haven't. Since they bottomed out, the wages have been growing quite well.

That just shows you how HORRIBLE the policies of Jimmy Carter were - they were so bad it has taken 30 years to recover.

Perhaps I'm a bit confused then. Could you offer some graph or chart or data set that shows a significant increase in middle class incomes (adjusted for inflation of course) between this Jimmy Carter fall and today?

Constitutionally Speaking
09-24-2010, 03:46 PM
Perhaps I'm a bit confused then. Could you offer some graph or chart or data set that shows a significant increase in middle class incomes (adjusted for inflation of course) between this Jimmy Carter fall and today?




Just from a quick search online - as my data is in hard copy format or at my office. It is PEW - so it is definitely not a "conservative" source and I haven't looked all that closely at it, but it should suit the purpose here.


http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/images/mc-median-household-incom.gif




http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/images/mc-income-group.gif




http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/706/middle-class-poll

Joe Inflate
09-30-2010, 02:35 PM
You know what I really think happened?

Businesses are getting smarter and smarter, and learned to avoid giving big salaries to worthless people. See the productivity increases.

An economy in which a filthy hippie is able to obtain money is a bad economy.

Molon Labe
09-30-2010, 04:37 PM
Perhaps I'm a bit confused then. Could you offer some graph or chart or data set that shows a significant increase in middle class incomes (adjusted for inflation of course) between this Jimmy Carter fall and today?

Actually, the larger the federal government has grown, the more middle class incomes have taken a bath. It has nothing to do with whose POTUS. It's a "systems" thing.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 04:05 AM
Just from a quick search online - as my data is in hard copy format or at my office. It is PEW - so it is definitely not a "conservative" source and I haven't looked all that closely at it, but it should suit the purpose here.


http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/images/mc-median-household-incom.gif




http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/images/mc-income-group.gif




http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/706/middle-class-poll

These are tricky because they group everyone together, with people making lots of money skewing the data It's easier to see if we break the data up into quintiles:

http://i52.tinypic.com/f2j9eu.png

Or if we examine % of shared income:

http://i52.tinypic.com/inzkvl.jpg


Yeah people at the bottom in the middle got a few extra dollars, but the country exploded in growth and it nearly all went to the top/.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-03-2010, 10:57 AM
Couple of points.

My chart (which I STILL admittedly haven't examined in detail) show THREE income groups instead of 5 and yet they STILL show significant real growth in incomes - at all LEVELS.

The lowest 1/3 increased by over 41%, The middle 1/3 increased by 39.72% and the upper 1/3 increased by 50.33%.

I see no issue here whatsoever UNLESS you are trying to build up a resentment. IF the poor have increased their incomes by 41% - in a country that is already amongst the wealthiest on earth, it is increadibly GOOD - regardless of how good or bad anyone else did.

BUT, in the interest of actually making sure we are examining the same things, if possible, could you PLEASE provide the original source tables this was taken from - and if that is not possible, the actual study you are linking? They REALLY are significant to determine what is actually being revealed.

Secondly, if you stop and consider for a moment what the COMPONENTS pay are it shows a different story also.

For example, I would suggest we examine total compensation also for a more complete picture of how each group has benefited.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-03-2010, 11:03 AM
Just a random thought.


What happens when a person in the lower income quintile earns more money??? Does it affect the average of that quintile, or is he moved up into the next quintile??

What happens when a person in the TOP quintile earns more money?? Does it affect the average of that quintile or is he moved into a different quintile???

Think about it.

Answer: It distorts the implications of the whole basis of quintile analysis.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 01:35 PM
Couple of points.

My chart (which I STILL admittedly haven't examined in detail) show THREE income groups instead of 5 and yet they STILL show significant real growth in incomes - at all LEVELS.

Right. The first graph is a bit disingenuous because it collapses everyone into one group. However I'm not arguing that the poor have seen NO increase in wages, only that for the working and middle class people, wages have been stagnant compared to the outstanding growth of the top 10-20%



The lowest 1/3 increased by over 41%, The middle 1/3 increased by 39.72% and the upper 1/3 increased by 50.33%.

This is still pure income too, a data set which shows some of the lowest amounts of inequality, unlike wealth, but I'm comfortable talking about income.



I see no issue here whatsoever UNLESS you are trying to build up a resentment. IF the poor have increased their incomes by 41% - in a country that is already amongst the wealthiest on earth, it is increadibly GOOD - regardless of how good or bad anyone else did.

Tricky move here. The country is the wealtheist in the world but the people are not. Poor people here are worse off than poor people in many other countries.

Working class people getting a 5% increase in income while the cost of living increases 15% isn't a net gain, especially when there's trillions of dollars of wealth being produced but 8/10ths of it goes to the top 10%.



BUT, in the interest of actually making sure we are examining the same things, if possible, could you PLEASE provide the original source tables this was taken from - and if that is not possible, the actual study you are linking? They REALLY are significant to determine what is actually being revealed.

I'll work on it, I'll see if I can get a buttload of data on this soon. How about the source for your graphs?




Secondly, if you stop and consider for a moment what the COMPONENTS pay are it shows a different story also.

For example, I would suggest we examine total compensation also for a more complete picture of how each group has benefited.

Does that include capital gains?

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 01:37 PM
Just a random thought.


What happens when a person in the lower income quintile earns more money??? Does it affect the average of that quintile, or is he moved up into the next quintile??

What happens when a person in the TOP quintile earns more money?? Does it affect the average of that quintile or is he moved into a different quintile???

Think about it.

It depends on what everyone else is doing. Because it's not divided up by static values, a person's place is determined relative to everyone else's place.



Answer: It distorts the implications of the whole basis of quintile analysis.

People don't like categories that can fluctuate as much as quintiles, but the real data is constantly fluctuating, the economy doesn't move all in one direction, so this is necessary and very useful/

Constitutionally Speaking
10-03-2010, 05:39 PM
It depends on what everyone else is doing. Because it's not divided up by static values, a person's place is determined relative to everyone else's place.


But in the lower quintiles, when you earn more, you move up and out of the quintile, thus depriving that quintile of it's highest earners.

When you reach the top quintile, there IS NO way to move up and out - so your income does indeed increase the average.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-03-2010, 05:46 PM
I'll work on it, I'll see if I can get a buttload of data on this soon. How about the source for your graphs?





I don't need a buttload of data, just a link to the original source or study. There is no need to work THAT hard - a link is fine.


My graphs were sourced in the first post they appeared.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-03-2010, 05:48 PM
I just noticed something in your first graph.


It excludes government transfers. Since that is the main source of income for many of the lowest quintile, I would think that this is a huge flaw in the premise.

m00
10-03-2010, 10:40 PM
You know what I really think happened?

Businesses are getting smarter and smarter, and learned to avoid giving big salaries to worthless people.

Doubtful. :p