Another chart that tells the story on our economic share of wealth problem

[momeNt]

Well, it's amusing to see a "conservative" claiming that a progressive is reactionary. Or are you claiming that the changes in income distribution over the last 30 years are actually some form of progress?

I think those changes are entirely reactionary, a return to the means, methods & results of the 1920's, with everything that follows along, including extreme economic instability.

It was the advent of the New Deal in the FDR years that provided the framework of shared prosperity of the post-WW2 era prior to Reagan, of policy that flattened the income curve, policy no longer in force today.

It's not like opportunity was stifled or that there were disincentives to work & innovation, either. Had we maintained the income distribution curve of 1980, the median family would be earning ~40% more, and the fabulously wealthy would still be... fabulously wealthy.

You live in a delusion that FDR saved capitalism from itself.

If you want to abandon the post 1920s instability you should maybe start with what caused it, aggressive central planning and central banking.

I suppose it maybe could work where you could keep all the central planning and banking that makes the wall street banks huge and prosperous, and the top 1% even richer, and then simply take it away each year when the taxes are filed. But why go through the trouble and just fix what's wrong? Instead of taxing to get the desired outcomes?

 

[JTsyo]

Part of the reason for the drop is the off-shoring of jobs. The income for the wealthy is now coming from labor outside the US.
I would think the other reason is that the top 1% get a large portion of their income from investments rather than ownership of business. The returns on the market over the last 20 years have been pretty good.

Part of the issue is that the wealthly holds the power over policy. Even though the bottom 90% outnumber the top 10%, they end up voting against themselves since they vote for candidates based on wedge issues instead of self-interest. I'm sure it is probably true in all societies that the wealthy really run the country.

 

[HomerJS]

What? Are you kidding me? You're telling me that based off of this chart, you can determine that average/90% income percentage increase has slowed directly because CEO pay has increased? So, the slow economy is because CEO's are making too much money? lol.

Nobody is drawing conclusions between CEO pay and the state of the economy.

I wil say this people like CEOs have gamed the system enough to gain this type of disparty have a greater obligation to support the upkeep of the country. No CEO has amased their fortune without help from average workers or the infrastructure of the United States.

 

[shadow9d9]

What? Are you kidding me? You're telling me that based off of this chart, you can determine that average/90% income percentage increase has slowed directly because CEO pay has increased? So, the slow economy is because CEO's are making too much money? lol.

Sometimes. Cutting workforce by 1000s and then giving themselves a 5 million dollar bonus is pretty common nowadays and has been for a while.

 

[Jhhnn]

You live in a delusion that FDR saved capitalism from itself.

If you want to abandon the post 1920s instability you should maybe start with what caused it, aggressive central planning and central banking.

I suppose it maybe could work where you could keep all the central planning and banking that makes the wall street banks huge and prosperous, and the top 1% even richer, and then simply take it away each year when the taxes are filed. But why go through the trouble and just fix what's wrong? Instead of taxing to get the desired outcomes?

Utterly bizarre. I wasn't talking about instability after the 1929 crash, but the inherent instability of free market capitalism that led to it. There wasn't any central planning involved in that, or in the crash of 2008, either. The period from 1945 to 1980 was the period of the greatest financial stability ever achieved in this country, and that was the period when the concepts of the New Deal held sway. It was also the period when the broad middle class came into being.

Central banking the cause of financial meltdowns? There were a myriad of financial meltdowns prior to the invention of the FRB-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

 

[momeNt]

Utterly bizarre. I wasn't talking about instability after the 1929 crash, but the inherent instability of free market capitalism that led to it. There wasn't any central planning involved in that, or in the crash of 2008, either. The period from 1945 to 1980 was the period of the greatest financial stability ever achieved in this country, and that was the period when the concepts of the New Deal held sway. It was also the period when the broad middle class came into being.

Central banking the cause of financial meltdowns? There were a myriad of financial meltdowns prior to the invention of the FRB-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Yes, those are the ones caused by bank credit creation and the subsequent contractions.

Let's make the other a reading list. I'd like to get a better understanding of what shaped your views.

For you: America's Great Depression
http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

Let me have yours when you're ready. Thanks.

 

[Lithium381]

How dare someone make money. We will tax the hell out of them and punish them, then give it away to the "less fortunate"............

this. it's the only way. we MUST give things to those who have less.... then they will appreciate their newfound wealth and subsequently work harder to better our society....

oh wait

 

[Craig234]

this. it's the only way. we MUST give things to those who have less.... then they will appreciate their newfound wealth and subsequently work harder to better our society....

oh wait

We should have broad prosperity. You are clueless and don't understand that.

Some in Russia *loved* Stalin. You are the equivalent here, loving your masters.

 

[GrGr]

You live in a delusion that FDR saved capitalism from itself.

If you want to abandon the post 1920s instability you should maybe start with what caused it, aggressive central planning and central banking.

I suppose it maybe could work where you could keep all the central planning and banking that makes the wall street banks huge and prosperous, and the top 1% even richer, and then simply take it away each year when the taxes are filed. But why go through the trouble and just fix what's wrong? Instead of taxing to get the desired outcomes?

What do you mean with "central planning" and "central banking"? The Fed is in the service of Wall Street, and Wall Street has nothing to do with "central planning".

 

[Ausm]

Let me guess. If you vote you are going to pick someone from a party who either has no chance of winning or supports this trend. The fiction of "raising the taxes on the rich" has two flaws. First it does nothing to fix anything. Oh yes some of them will have less take home pay. Those would be the ones who earn income from their job directly. Those who do so by more creative means of compensation or who get their money from investments won't suffer and those happen to be the ones who aren't making 500k, but far far more, in other words those in power who support the party you are voting for. So we have a diversion in "tax the rich" who isn't going to for those who truly are, but worse this won't generate enough income to do anything constructive, nor will it do what is really necessary and that's the second point, generate jobs here. Not smoke and mirror programs, but a stable base which produces good paying jobs. What people support is getting even, nothing more.

LOLwut?? I want the Bush tax cuts to expire and I realize increase taxes is just a bandaid to are overall fiscal problems but it's a start.

 

[Craig234]

What do you mean with "central planning" and "central banking"? The Fed is in the service of Wall Street, and Wall Street has nothing to do with "central planning".

Wall Street has plenty to do with central planning, but these ideologues can't tell the difference between good and bad central planning so they just condemn all of it.

It's like arguing that because you lose a battle in a war, 'centralized planning of the war', having generals at all, is the problem.

It's bad ideology.

 

[Lithium381]

We should have broad prosperity. You are clueless and don't understand that.

Some in Russia *loved* Stalin. You are the equivalent here, loving your masters.

Why does everyone have to be prosperous? Why do some assume that poorer people aren't happy or content? Why do they then assume that having more money make them happy?

Do I think that the top 1% of wealthy Americans have too much? Yes I do.
Do I think that myself or anyone else is entitled to their wealth because they don't have that much? Nope.

There is a HUGE lack of personal responsibility throughout our country now. It's always someone elses' fault. A HUGE part of the problem is that we do not let things fail. There are no lessons to be learned. Are social programs good? ABSOLUTELY.... short term. If you make a bad decision and need a helping hand out, I'm glad to extend it..... but if someone is never going to be a contributing member of society.... they have no place here. I'm sorry, but if we're talking "fair share", then it needs to be applied equally to all.

 

[Ausm]

Why does everyone have to be prosperous? Why do some assume that poorer people aren't happy or content? Why do they then assume that having more money make them happy?

Do I think that the top 1% of wealthy Americans have too much? Yes I do.
Do I think that myself or anyone else is entitled to their wealth because they don't have that much? Nope.

There is a HUGE lack of personal responsibility throughout our country now. It's always someone elses' fault. A HUGE part of the problem is that we do not let things fail. There are no lessons to be learned. Are social programs good? ABSOLUTELY.... short term. If you make a bad decision and need a helping hand out, I'm glad to extend it..... but if someone is never going to be a contributing member of society.... they have no place here. I'm sorry, but if we're talking "fair share", then it needs to be applied equally to all.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA X 10 to the 100th power I told my own kids,nieces and nephews that the old saying "Money doesn't bring you happiness" is complete BULLSHIT. If you have to make the decision of paying a bill or eating hell that would make anyone happy

 

[Craig234]

Why does everyone have to be prosperous?

First, that's a straw man. No one is talking about that. At this time, it's unachievable.

We're talking about broad prosperity - as many as possible.

Second, why? Because all else being equal, that's better for people.

More money makes people better off and happier up to about $50K per year - not after that, despite most being convinced otherwise.

The average wage, adjusted for inflation, in the right-wing paradise of 1900 was $10,000. Quite a ways to go on the 'good for people' scale.

Also, a few having too much created huge problems for society, as they put in place oppressive measures to keep and increase that massive wealth.

As has been observed repeatedly, you can have a massive concentration of wealth or you can have democracy, but not both.

Why do some assume that poorer people aren't happy or content? Why do they then assume that having more money make them happy?

There are actual studies on this, showing it for up to that $50,000 figure.

Do I think that the top 1% of wealthy Americans have too much? Yes I do.
Do I think that myself or anyone else is entitled to their wealth because they don't have that much? Nope.

This is a problem with the right-wing ideology. The system is either designed to concentrate or distribute wealth that is generated in the economy.

The wealthy don't have shame about doing what they can to shift the wealth their direction, regardless of the impact to others. But if the 99% want to shift the system to not concentrate wealth with the 1%, it's some 'theft'. That's what they call a 'peasant mentality' in my opinion - or perhaps even Stockholm syndrome as you are trained to view money as properly belonging to the wealthy if they take it, but as theft if you do.

All the gnashing of teeth about do they DESERVE it' and what they did to earn it is only applied to the 99% - the 1% get a pass, of course they deserve it.

Even here where you say 'they have too much', not a word about anything wrong why they do - only attacks on doing anything about it.

And an absurd equating of all policies on the distribution of income to 'welfare'.

There is a HUGE lack of personal responsibility throughout our country now. It's always someone elses' fault. A HUGE part of the problem is that we do not let things fail. There are no lessons to be learned. Are social programs good? ABSOLUTELY.... short term. If you make a bad decision and need a helping hand out, I'm glad to extend it..... but if someone is never going to be a contributing member of society.... they have no place here. I'm sorry, but if we're talking "fair share", then it needs to be applied equally to all.

You can rant and rail about a social agenda all day, and it doesn't change the inequity.

When the economy grows to double the size, a rising tide should lift all boats - not only yachts. You excuse the top 1% siezing the wealth and criminalize the 99% protesting.

You are trying to use some ideology about blaming the victim here to say it's the people's fault that the distribution of wealth has radically changed - at the same time that the people have generated this new wealth with record productivity but not gotten to keep it.

You are just clueless about the social issues you are raising - how to address the poor.

I could explain more, but your responses have suggested it's a waste. You have a bad ideology leading to bad results, and you blaming wrongly, instead of taking that 'personal responsibility' yourself to get a clue about the policies that are actually good for society instead of a lazy ideology you are fed by propagandists for the wealthy.

 

[michal1980]

that chart shows growth. I see no negative numbers. Therefor everyone grew.

 

[shadow9d9]

that chart shows growth. I see no negative numbers. Therefor everyone grew.

Is that the best spin and damage control you could do?

 

[Ausm]

Is that the best spin and damage control you could do?

LOL :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Londo_Jowo]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Is this the international fapping sign?

 

[Ausm]

Is this the international fapping sign?

No in simple terminology it means I agree to what he posted.

 

[Lithium381]

First, that's a straw man. No one is talking about that. At this time, it's unachievable.
I just took what you said and expanded it.... everyone is as many as possible!
We're talking about broad prosperity - as many as possible.

Second, why? Because all else being equal, that's better for people.

More money makes people better off and happier up to about $50K per year - not after that, despite most being convinced otherwise.
So right about the median income?
The average wage, adjusted for inflation, in the right-wing paradise of 1900 was $10,000. Quite a ways to go on the 'good for people' scale.

Also, a few having too much created huge problems for society, as they put in place oppressive measures to keep and increase that massive wealth.

As has been observed repeatedly, you can have a massive concentration of wealth or you can have democracy, but not both.



There are actual studies on this, showing it for up to that $50,000 figure.

sounds like an interesting read, links?

This is a problem with the right-wing ideology. The system is either designed to concentrate or distribute wealth that is generated in the economy.

The wealthy don't have shame about doing what they can to shift the wealth their direction, regardless of the impact to others. But if the 99% want to shift the system to not concentrate wealth with the 1%, it's some 'theft'. That's what they call a 'peasant mentality' in my opinion - or perhaps even Stockholm syndrome as you are trained to view money as properly belonging to the wealthy if they take it, but as theft if you do.
That's because the "theft" is taking wealth for which you haven't done anything to earn it, simply through legislation.
All the gnashing of teeth about do they DESERVE it' and what they did to earn it is only applied to the 99% - the 1% get a pass, of course they deserve it.
You're trying to play semantics. Nice Try. Do they deserve all that wealth. Not for me to say, but did they earn it? Yep, some way or another they did.
Even here where you say 'they have too much', not a word about anything wrong why they do - only attacks on doing anything about it.
What's WRONG about them having it? Because YOU think it's not fair that they have more than you do?
And an absurd equating of all policies on the distribution of income to 'welfare'.

You can rant and rail about a social agenda all day, and it doesn't change the inequity.
There is and always will be inequality
When the economy grows to double the size, a rising tide should lift all boats - not only yachts. You excuse the top 1% siezing the wealth and criminalize the 99% protesting.
I didn't say they were criminals. Just that they *SEEM* lazy and *SEEM* to have an entitlement attitude about life
You are trying to use some ideology about blaming the victim here to say it's the people's fault that the distribution of wealth has radically changed - at the same time that the people have generated this new wealth with record productivity but not gotten to keep it.
Stop trying to give these people a pass. You're making excuses for them. Lessons are learned by failing. Bad choices can help you learn something, if you let them.
You are just clueless about the social issues you are raising - how to address the poor.

I could explain more, but your responses have suggested it's a waste. You have a bad ideology leading to bad results, and you blaming wrongly, instead of taking that 'personal responsibility' yourself to get a clue about the policies that are actually good for society instead of a lazy ideology you are fed by propagandists for the wealthy.
There is no more social stigma from living on the government teat.... instead it's almost celebrated. Society no longer looks down on people who are down.... this is a problem. There is a decreasing motive to try.

inline.

 

[werepossum]

Why does everyone have to be prosperous? Why do some assume that poorer people aren't happy or content? Why do they then assume that having more money make them happy?

Do I think that the top 1% of wealthy Americans have too much? Yes I do.
Do I think that myself or anyone else is entitled to their wealth because they don't have that much? Nope.

There is a HUGE lack of personal responsibility throughout our country now. It's always someone elses' fault. A HUGE part of the problem is that we do not let things fail. There are no lessons to be learned. Are social programs good? ABSOLUTELY.... short term. If you make a bad decision and need a helping hand out, I'm glad to extend it..... but if someone is never going to be a contributing member of society.... they have no place here. I'm sorry, but if we're talking "fair share", then it needs to be applied equally to all.

Damned well said. We're now at the point that people with iPhones and Macbooks are protesting the wealthy, demanding an end to capitalism, and where a woman with a household income of $70,000+ can ask a candidate "What are you going to do for me?" without being an object of ridicule. Our entitlement mentality is far more widespread than welfare people, the Occupiers are merely the most egregious examples.

Anyone believing that we as a nation can continue consuming far more wealth than we produce as long as government then seizes the wealth and spreads it around is as stupid as whomever made Craig's graph, which shows the "Average Income for Top 10%" as being a small fraction of the "Average Income for Bottom 90%" from 1946 to 1976. (Hint to Mother Jones: Don't make graphs while high. It really doesn't make you smarter.)