I'm still waiting for it to trickle down.... wait... here it comes! Why does that taste like piss?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/income-gap-between-rich-a_n_639984.html

Quote :

"The gap between the wealthiest Americans and middle- and working-class Americans has more than tripled in the past three decades, according to a June 25 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. New data show that the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest parts of the population in 2007 was the highest it's been in 80 years, while the share of income going to the middle one-fifth of Americans shrank to its lowest level ever. The CBPP report attributes the widening of this gap partly to Bush Administration tax cuts, which primarily benefited the wealthy. Of the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts taxpayers received through 2008, high-income households received by far the largest -- not only in amount but also as a percentage of income -- which shifted the concentration of after-tax income toward the top of the spectrum. The average household in the top 1 percent earned $1.3 million after taxes in 2007, up $88,800 just from the prior year, while the income of the average middle-income household hovered around $55,300. While the nation's total income has grown sharply since 1979, according to the CBPP report, the wealthiest households have claimed an increasingly large share of the pie. Arloc Sherman, a researcher for CBPP, said the income gap is expanding not because the middle class is losing income, but because the wealthiest incomes are skyrocketing. "If income growth had been shared equally among all income groups, the families at the bottom would have $6,000 per year more than they do now, and the middle would have $13,000 more," he said. Sherman said one key to closing the gap is a responsible tax policy. Story continues below "It would be a big step in the wrong direction to enact proposals like a big rollback in the taxes on the wealthiest estates," Sherman said. "It would probably help to enact some of the middle class tax extender proposals advanced by the President and the Democrats, including things like the extension of the expanded child tax credit." The CBPP data do not show the effect of the recession that began in December 2007, but economists say that the recession has probably reduced the income gap only temporarily due to the severe drop in the stock market. "Everyone, rich and poor, has been hammered in this recession," Sherman said. "But in the past, the wealthy have rebounded more easily than the middle."

Full report here: http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-25-10inc.pdf

Quote :

"Taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top of the income scale than at any time since 1928. .... In 1979, the incomes of the top 1 percent were 22.7 times higher than those of the bottom fifth. By 2007, top incomes were 74.6 times higher than those at the bottom — more than tripling the rich/poor gap in 28 years"

So, the rich get richer.... and the rest of us... well... we do nothing.

In before someone says that tax cuts for the rich help all of us become more successful.

7/9/2010 9:45:45 AM

How about you stop whining, and go fucking work?

7/9/2010 9:47:44 AM

Heh, lemme know when you get into that top 1 percent, BD.

7/9/2010 9:50:15 AM

Well, i'm armed with the knowledge that I don't need to be in that top 1% to be happy.

So, I don't whine as much.

7/9/2010 9:54:28 AM

You don't have a problem with the income level raising over time at an incredibly higher rate for the ridiculously rich more than anyone else?

7/9/2010 10:08:32 AM

thats globalization. The public education system has completely failed to educate the populace to meet the demands of changing economies.

But yea. You keep blaming rich people. Thats a real easy target, isnt it.

7/9/2010 10:37:34 AM

You don't think that they control the policy? Why wouldn't they make it so they get rich at the expense of everyone else?

7/9/2010 10:48:56 AM

What makes you say it's "at the expense of everyone else"?

7/9/2010 11:18:55 AM

Either they're creating wealth out of thin air or,

instead of all of us increasing our wealth by 50%, us "normies" get an increase of 25%, and they get an increase of 281%.

281%.

7/9/2010 11:33:03 AM

who cares

the more money you have, the easier it is to make more.

7/9/2010 11:43:49 AM

I realize that you are one of the biggest douche bags on this board but I feel the need to respond.

The rich get richer? NO SHIT
They didn't become rich by working at a fucking call center and bitching on a message board all day. You also need to realize that 1% is actually a lot of fucking people. The people that are in that 1% change quite a bit over time. Do you think that when people are in that top 1% they stop earning money? No they invest that money and create jobs. They didn't become a 1%er (to borrow from Biker lingo) by stuffing their money in a mattress. This is what makes our world go round, if you don't like it, change it or GTFO.

I hope that while you are going back for your second degree you take a couple of economic courses.

7/9/2010 11:55:36 AM

Statistically these data do not take into account non-monetary benefits (which have been growing as a fraction of worker compensation over this time period).

But more importantly, it doesn't address income modbility. After tax incomes among the top 1 percent have been growing really really fast. Okay, but this doesn't necc imply that the "rich get richer" as the people in each percentile will change from year to year. This year, I may be in the top fifth, next year I may be in the bottom fifth. I know of more than 1 real estate agent that was netting almpst 100k 5 years and is netting 20k this year. These types of data are essentially useless for telling us about actual inequality in the United States.

NOW, your post might actually mean something if you also showed that income mobility was declining. In that case you actually could say the "rich are getting richer" while the rest of us are fucked.

Short of that you're just talking out of your ass.

[Edited on July 9, 2010 at 12:07 PM. Reason : PS* Think longitudinal not cross-sectional.]

7/9/2010 12:04:47 PM

the top 1% are also providing a lot of the jobs for the rest of us by putting their money at risk.

but again, its easier to player-hate than it is to actually go make yourself rich..so i get it.

7/9/2010 12:08:20 PM

lolol

the sweet benevolent rich creating all these jobs for you

the same ones that got rich during the housing bubble

and then got rich when it burst in 2008

and continue to get rich while everyone else is unemployed

7/9/2010 12:12:19 PM

how are the "rich" going to get richer when "everyone" is unemployed, not purchasing good/services, etc...

they dont shit money.

there are some people who are savvy and have capital will certainly get rich on the downturn, because they can flip distressed real estate, loan money when banks wont, etc...but that is on their own merits.

its not difficult to grasp.



[Edited on July 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2010 12:23:44 PM

When you don't know what you're talking about

use emotion, hyperbole, slippery slopes, and strawmen to cover up your ignorance.

God and indy has mastered this far beyond anyone else on TWW.

[Edited on July 9, 2010 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2010 1:56:40 PM

Quote :

"the same ones that got rich during the housing bubble and then got rich when it burst in 2008 and continue to get rich while everyone else is unemployed"

Soooo, you mean they were smart?

7/9/2010 2:29:04 PM

Whether the rich people are completely responsible for this or are only benefiting from it, it's a problem.

I have no problem with the rich getting richer, as long as the poor are getting richer too.

7/9/2010 3:02:06 PM

Quote :

"But more importantly, it doesn't address income modbility. After tax incomes among the top 1 percent have been growing really really fast. Okay, but this doesn't necc imply that the "rich get richer" as the people in each percentile will change from year to year. This year, I may be in the top fifth, next year I may be in the bottom fifth. I know of more than 1 real estate agent that was netting almpst 100k 5 years and is netting 20k this year. These types of data are essentially useless for telling us about actual inequality in the United States. NOW, your post might actually mean something if you also showed that income mobility was declining. In that case you actually could say the "rich are getting richer" while the rest of us are fucked. Short of that you're just talking out of your ass. "

Rather than buy into God's argument (that the rich are getting richer), you should probably evaluate the quality of the data his argument rests on.

7/9/2010 3:05:09 PM

Quote :

"thats globalization. The public education system has completely failed to educate the populace to meet the demands of changing economies. "

pretty much. incomes have been polarizing for decades. there is no more middle class. on a macro scale, we have mostly either high skill, high income jobs or low skill, low income jobs.

Quote :

"Why wouldn't they make it so they get rich at the expense of everyone else?"

i really think that most people want more money for themselves, not less money for everyone else. this shouldn't need explanation.

Quote :

"the same ones that got rich during the housing bubble and then got rich when it burst in 2008"

besides bankers playing an inside game, who got rich when the housing bubble burst and markets declined? people relying on an increase in diversified investment equity to get rich, people relying on an increase in demand for their services or products to get rich?

you act like every single aspect of life can be boiled down to two absolutely contrary outcomes, one for the "rich" and one for "everyone else".

7/9/2010 3:10:46 PM

It's sad to see dogs defending their masters for the sake of table scraps

7/9/2010 3:25:27 PM

Looks like the technology boom made some nerds really rich. In the meantime, they've made the lives of all people a lot better because we all use thier gadgets.

I don't understand why there always has to be a bad guy and a victim.


OMF RICH PEOPLE LOST A HIGHER PERCENT OF WEALTH IN THE DOTCOM BUST LIFE ISNT FAIR KILL THE POOR

7/9/2010 3:26:46 PM

Get ready for everybody to trot out arguments that exploitation is necessary and good

It's funny how the oligarchy has trained you to love rough yanks of your leash

7/9/2010 3:30:54 PM

A LOT has changed since 2007. A LOT.



I'm not talking about Alot the monster either.

7/9/2010 3:49:11 PM

McDanger actually, you should probably get ready for some one to ask what role exploitation plays in country where education is heavily subsidized and workers operate in a competitive labor market where they are free to move from job to job.

Honestly, you should be ready to define the term "exploitation" itself. Because I think it would be very difficult to do given insights from neoclassical microeconomic theory on how prices (such as wages) are the result of the voluntary interactions between buyers (employers) and sellers (workers) with subjective preferences.

I am suspecting you picked up the term because you think it makes you sound radical--without realizing of course that its traditional definition is dependent on the idea value can be objectively measured (specifically using the "labor theory of value" from classical economics), an idea roundly refuted almost 100 years ago during the Marginal Revolution.

But I digress...


[Edited on July 9, 2010 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ``]

7/9/2010 3:52:14 PM

gronke, i guess if you're arguing for a massive reduction in the size of the federal government im all for it. But more likely this is some stupid faggot whiny babby "gimme money cause im too dumb to do anything" rant.

Quote :

"the same ones that got rich during the housing bubble and then got rich when it burst in 2008"

100% the fault of the federal reserve's lending practices and its relationship with large banks. Im 100% behind removing all subsidies for every business everywhere.

7/9/2010 4:00:03 PM

I believe the reason for these statistics is that the poor people spent all of their money on lottery tickets.

7/9/2010 4:05:55 PM

Quote :

"Get ready for everybody to trot out arguments that exploitation is necessary and good It's funny how the oligarchy has trained you to love rough yanks of your leash"

It's funny to hear this coming from a statist.

7/9/2010 4:15:44 PM

Quote :

"gronke, i guess if you're arguing for a massive reduction in the size of the federal government im all for it. But more likely this is some stupid faggot whiny babby "gimme money cause im too dumb to do anything" rant."

No, but a return to the tax rats of the 1950s would be great.

7/9/2010 4:20:54 PM

Quote :

"NOW, your post might actually mean something if you also showed that income mobility was declining. In that case you actually could say the "rich are getting richer" while the rest of us are fucked. "

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2009/wp0907.pdf

From one of the Fed banks who basically have no vested interest in posting a piece like this, the money line

Quote :

"Taken together, this evidence suggests that over the 1967-to-2004 time span, a low-income family’s probability of moving up decreased, families’ later year incomes increasingly depended on their starting place, and the distribution of families’ lifetime incomes became less equal."

I'm not quite sure what point you were attempting to make with the realtor. He was just one of the weaker hands that got shook out of the "richer" group by someone who was smarter and likely richer than him/her, an addition transfer of wealth.

7/9/2010 4:52:52 PM

Not exactly related, but I'm reminded of this video I saw a while back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA

The screening of the lecture itself ends at the thirty-seven mark.

7/9/2010 5:08:19 PM

YEH, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SET OUR WAGES! THAT'LL WORK!

7/9/2010 5:29:10 PM

Potty Mouth,

Thanks for the post. I remember a similar presentation from a 1997 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (using the same data set it looks like). Mobility was declining then, too.*

This should be the statistic that pisses people off. Rather than piss and moan about how much the "rich" are making, realize that it is becoming less and less likely you will be "rich" yourself. That is kinda what America is built on. That anyone can make it if they work hard enough.

What everyone in this thread needs to realize is that income levels don't mean shit. But declining mobility might signal a structural problem we might want to address.

*found it.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138234?seq=18

[Edited on July 9, 2010 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ``]

7/9/2010 5:48:59 PM

Trickle-Down Ignorance
By Thomas Sowell
April 2, 2005

Quote :

"A recent column has brought forth more than the usual number of uninformed denunciations, so it may be useful to other readers to explain why they should not take such nonsense seriously when they encounter it. As much as I enjoy most of the messages from readers, there is no way that I can answer more than a small fraction of them. The messages I don't reply to at all are those from obviously ignorant people who offer insults instead of arguments. However, a recent column has brought forth more than the usual number of uninformed denunciations, so it may be useful to other readers to explain why they should not take such nonsense seriously when they encounter it. What I said that set off the crazies was that there is no such thing as 'trickle-down' economics. Supposedly those who believe in trickle-down economics want to give benefits to the rich, on the assumption that these benefits will trickle down to the poor. As someone who spent the first decade of his career researching, teaching and writing about the history of economic thought, I can say that no economist of the past two centuries had any such theory. Some of those who denounced me for saying that there was no trickle-down theory cited an article by David Stockman years ago -- as if David Stockman was the last word, and I should forget everything I learned in years of research because David Stockman said otherwise. What is often confused with a trickle-down theory is supply-side economics, such as that advocated by Arthur Laffer. That theory is that tax cuts can generate more tax revenue for the government because it changes people's behavior, causing more economic activity to take place, leading to more taxable income, as well as a faster growing economy. It is not hard to find examples of when this happened -- for example, during the Kennedy administration, among other times and places. Whether it will happen in a given set of circumstances is what is controversial, but none of this has anything to do with money trickling down from the rich to the poor. It has to do with the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole.[/b The notion of a trickle-down theory is debunked on pages 388-389 of my book 'Basic Economics' (2nd edition). But most of those who went ballistic over my denial of a trickle-down theory were not seeking further information. [b]As far as they were concerned, they already had the absolute truth and only needed to vent their anger over my having dared to say otherwise. That is a sign of a much more general and much more dangerous trend in our society today that goes far beyond a handful of true believers foaming at the mouth against one columnist. If education provides anything, it should be an ability to think -- that is, to weigh one idea against an opposing idea, and to use evidence and logic to try to determine what is true and what is false. That is precisely what our schools and colleges are failing to teach today. It is worse than that. Too many teachers, from the elementary schools to the graduate schools, see their role as indoctrinating students with what these teachers regard as the right beliefs and opinions. Usually that means the left's beliefs and opinions. The merits or demerits of those ideas is far less important than whether or not students learn to analyze and weigh those merits and demerits. Educators used to say, 'We are here to teach you how to think, not what to think.' Today, students can spend years in educational institutions, discussing all sorts of issues, without ever having heard a coherent statement of the other side of those issues that differ from what their politically correct teachers say. There are students in our most prestigious law schools who have never heard arguments for the social importance of property rights -- not just for those fortunate enough to own property, but for those who don't own a square inch of real estate or a single share of stock. How they would view the issues if they did is a moot point because they have heard only one side of the issue. People who go through life never having heard the other side of issues ranging from environmentalism to minimum wage laws are nevertheless emboldened to lash out in ignorance at anyone who disturbs their vision of the world. The self-confident moral preening of ignoramuses is perhaps an inevitable product of the promotion of 'self-esteem' in our schools."

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/economics/4183-Trickle-Down-Ignorance.html

[/thread]

7/9/2010 6:01:49 PM

How does that at all end the thread?

7/9/2010 6:54:06 PM

How does "[/thread]" ever end any thread? These days, it's usually more of a rhetorical device--but this, of course, is self-evident.

7/9/2010 7:02:08 PM

Quote :

"thats globalization. The public education system has completely failed to educate the populace to meet the demands of changing economies."

This also applies to the astoundingly stupid and partisan quote hooksaw posted above.

The idea that the american educational systems failure is the cause of this is easily disproven by analyzing average household income by years. The US has stayed at about the same level relative to most other countries.

in b4 "class warrior bullshit" but
The rich will always have the ability to tilt the system to their advantage, and they generally do so gradually. Likewise, the poor will always have the ability to balance it back out, but a Marxist analysis of history will show that they have always exercised this ability in a drastic stepped manner once a breaking point arises. Additionally one can see that as we have progressed over the last thousand years, this stepping has graduallized into more frequent and less drastic steps.

Just some thoughts I felt were relevant.

7/10/2010 2:29:59 AM

^ Thomas Sowell, PhD in economics, University of Chicago; AM in economics, Columbia University; AB in economics, magna cum laude, Harvard College.

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University: September 1980 to present.

Professor at Cornell, Amherst, and the University of California at Los Angeles, Brandeis University, and several other colleges.

Columnist, commentator, and author of several books on economics (Basic Economics and Applied Economics, just to name a couple), as well as numerous other books on history, social policy, ethnicity, and the history of ideas.

vs.

Kris, some guy on the Internet.

[Edited on July 10, 2010 at 7:43 PM. Reason : "Just some thoughts I felt were relevant." LOL! GG! ]

7/10/2010 7:42:27 PM

this is what happens when you subsidize the breeding of idiots.

7/10/2010 7:59:44 PM

^ Spoken like a true idiot .... I do think it has to do with globalization. American workers have to compete with the lowest labor rates in the world, while investors just get cheaper labor and higher profits ... But, do thing to strenthen labor and you would think the world is going blow up.

7/10/2010 10:30:28 PM

haha. There is certainly some truth to it, sorry.

You can also look to the increase in numbers on SSI. I would hate to see how much it is now with the recession.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/chart11.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html&usg=__LEZ5FRsaPgcenWBt7UczBJdUkqE=&h=429&w=649&sz=16&hl=en&start=8&sig2=l4eEOCIA0bcrZmKV5YS6ow&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=UjQGRB7MuJDzLM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnumber%2Bof%2Bpeople%2Bon%2Bwelfare%2Bor%2BSSI%2Bby%2Bdecade%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=ZEA5TJqcCsKqlAf9ipWeBA

7/11/2010 12:14:46 AM

This graph indicates that if you weren't on the lower half of the employment bell curve, Republicans and Bill Clinton have made capitalism a great success. If you unfortunately reside at the unemployable end of the spectrum with Gronke, you are pissed off at how everyone around you has been awarded for the progress they made while you remained stagnant.

7/11/2010 12:48:28 AM

Did you guys know you can get SSDI for a learning disability!?!?

Like, grown adults get $750/month for a learning disability. And I don't mean mental retardation...I mean, just being a tad bit slow on the uptake in one area or another...

WTF?

7/11/2010 1:25:09 AM

Sorry, the whole system just seems crazy!

I recently heard a story on NPR about a mentally ill 34 year-old mother of six who is finally medicated and off the streets...
She only gets $900/month to support her family and seems happy with it but is in a bunch of
programs to do better for herself.

Then I hear a story about a childless, learning disabled dude who gets $750/month (and works jobs on the side)...
and lives with his learning disabled girlfriend who is also drawing on disability...

This don't make no sense!

7/11/2010 1:51:20 AM

^yeah. When I first started practicing another doc in the practice asked if I noticed how many medicaid kids have ADD or ADHD listed on their forms. So we tracked it for a month. It was almost 80%. So we talked about what to do with that data and she happened to have a social worker as a patient and she said they put them on that to get an extra 500 a month and not to worry about it. That was an eye opener for me.

What is frustrating is that a lot of people who really need some assistance cant seem to get any, while the lazy with cell phones and their nails done seem to get the lions share. Not to mention the braces they all have for free, while the staff cant afford to put them on their kids...yet take home less money to help pay for the ones who dont work.. totally upside down.

[Edited on July 11, 2010 at 1:55 AM. Reason : .]

7/11/2010 1:52:20 AM

We call social services to try to get some kind of temp help for alot of workers who either dont have ins or dont have the right kind/under insured and they just tell them to quit working. System is just fucked up for those who are really trying and just need some help. We used to get great drug help from drug companies before part D came, now its a little tougher. They even cracked down on pharm/doc relationships so i dont get many samples anymore either. Sucks.

7/11/2010 2:02:09 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw:blah blah blah"

you can ad hominem me all you like, but when someone starts saying things like "see their role as indoctrinating students with what these teachers regard as the right beliefs and opinions. Usually that means the left's beliefs and opinions." and "The self-confident moral preening of ignoramuses is perhaps an inevitable product of the promotion of 'self-esteem' in our schools." you leave the world of actual reason behind.

7/11/2010 2:06:32 AM

Trickle down economics was never economics, it was a political slogan. Economists always found it laughable, because wealth does not trickle down, it trickles up. For more wealth to be created, the creator must first invest effort and money to create infrastructure and jobs, making everyone else better off right now, and then slowly over time recoup profit from their investments.

7/11/2010 3:22:17 AM

^^ I didn't attack you in an ad hom manner at all. I simply contrasted the qualifications of Dr. Thomas Sowell with what is known of your qualifications--I find Sowell to be significantly more credible.

7/11/2010 4:44:32 AM

^^because poor people are our nations biggest employers. got it.

does the top graph of the top 1% mirror the stock market? That would make the most sense, as poorer people are less likely to invest.

7/11/2010 9:47:27 AM