Brand New Chart Illustrates How The Rich Have Gamed The System

[agent00f]

I noticed the irony of randomly picking that graph when I went to post it. I guess I kept it as self deprecating humor. But it doesn't matter unless the graph is wrong. I didn't fact check it, but if it's wrong I'll face my shame head on.

Anyway, I actually agree with you on capitalism in a restricted sense. It's a prisoner's dilemma. If both parties never choose the most favorable outcome for the system (cooperation), then divergence collapse is inevitable.

And you would, and always have, argue that people only ever act in their own interest and thus, once they learn that their individual outcome is never better by cooperation, they never will.

And even this I agree with in a restricted sense. Except human self interest is not always directly hedonic. The thing most in the interest of the self is to expand one's positive sense of self, and that is often by bettering one's sense of self by bettering a group they identify with.

And so here we are. The fate of the free world rests on the capacity of people to quit being selfish bastards and think that their boss or employee are people they like and want to help. We are failing at this.

I suppose we could call it a day and give up. In which case you can be Czar, but I'm a long way from quitting so you'll have to tolerate me a bit longer.

And you thought I was too dumb to understand.

The graph is just misleading because most of the entitlement growth is old people. Though in fairness it's not necessarily wrong to argue they have it too good relative to everyone else; eg. guaranteed min income, free single payer heathcare, etc.

Also if people weren't selfish, capitalism wouldn't be efficient and surely such enlightened folk would move onto better ways.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wealth distribution, growth rate, and income inequality are massive problems and this graph is indeed scary.

And, for reference, here is a graph on entitlement spending:

I don't draw any conclusions on this, but I think it is naive to expect that Republican economic policy is responsible. If any such conclusion was reasonable based on this extremely limited set of data, it would be that increasing entitlement spending is responsible for greater inequality. Certainly both graphs are moving in the same direction.

Obviously, it is not that simple. But that's my point. Demonstrating that Republican economics are wrong carries a potentially dangerous consequence: assuming that Democrat economics are right.

To me, the data suggest both are wrong.

And if I earnestly felt I knew better, I wouldn't be doing my day job nor posting on these forms, but I do have some hypotheses that may be worthy of exploration:

1. First, we focus so heavily on the income side of personal finance that we neglect both costs and assets. Growing income itself is useless if costs keep pace, and if the balance isn't positive, asset growth is impossible. Thus, not only are incomes skewed, wealth is too. Wealth might be more important, and certainly we have seen things like home ownership and retirement investment plunge.
2. Within costs, fixed costs are much more important. If it costs everyone a basic $20k to live and costs scale from there depending on lifestyle, changing that $20k to $30k will cripple the lower earners and do almost nothing to the higher earners.
3. You can argue as to why, but for whatever reason even people who can afford to save or invest are doing so less often.
4. I see less and less alignment between employer and employee, customer and merchant. We are less and less seeing each other as people who are like us and more and more as things who want from us. This disincentivizes cooperation. With good alignment, it could be possible for many businesses to pay employees more and profit by doing so because they get more in return. It ain't working that way anymore, so each side is focused on themselves in return. And the guys with the resources are going to win more often than not.

You obfuscate madly, hiding the truth from yourself. The economics of the New Deal ushered in the creation of the broad middle class after WW2 & sustained it until Ronnie Rayguns took the Presidency & suckered us with the notion of trickle down economics.

The bottom 50% of tax filers lost nearly half their share of national income so that the share of the top 1% could double with most of that growth concentrated at the upper end.

Mere fact. Repubs quite obviously promote that trend entirely. Democrats oppose that & intend to reverse it if we can & will use the only tools available, taxes & redistribution, to accomplish it. Otherwise, the beatings will continue until morale improves.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course entitlements went up. That's largely due to the demographic bulge of Baby Boomers. They've also gone up quite grudgingly so that we don't have a lot more astoundingly poor people & places who've been cast aside by the Job Creators in their quest for profit.

Can't figure it out? In W Virginia, it's bad enough that people are dying to be sent back to the mines...

 

[ivwshane]

Wealth distribution, growth rate, and income inequality are massive problems and this graph is indeed scary.

And, for reference, here is a graph on entitlement spending:

I don't draw any conclusions on this, but I think it is naive to expect that Republican economic policy is responsible. If any such conclusion was reasonable based on this extremely limited set of data, it would be that increasing entitlement spending is responsible for greater inequality. Certainly both graphs are moving in the same direction.

Obviously, it is not that simple. But that's my point. Demonstrating that Republican economics are wrong carries a potentially dangerous consequence: assuming that Democrat economics are right.

To me, the data suggest both are wrong.

And if I earnestly felt I knew better, I wouldn't be doing my day job nor posting on these forms, but I do have some hypotheses that may be worthy of exploration:

1. First, we focus so heavily on the income side of personal finance that we neglect both costs and assets. Growing income itself is useless if costs keep pace, and if the balance isn't positive, asset growth is impossible. Thus, not only are incomes skewed, wealth is too. Wealth might be more important, and certainly we have seen things like home ownership and retirement investment plunge.
2. Within costs, fixed costs are much more important. If it costs everyone a basic $20k to live and costs scale from there depending on lifestyle, changing that $20k to $30k will cripple the lower earners and do almost nothing to the higher earners.
3. You can argue as to why, but for whatever reason even people who can afford to save or invest are doing so less often.
4. I see less and less alignment between employer and employee, customer and merchant. We are less and less seeing each other as people who are like us and more and more as things who want from us. This disincentivizes cooperation. With good alignment, it could be possible for many businesses to pay employees more and profit by doing so because they get more in return. It ain't working that way anymore, so each side is focused on themselves in return. And the guys with the resources are going to win more often than not.

That chart is misleading because it includes social security, a paid for item whose budget is closely related to the size of the older population. Once the baby boomer generation status dying off in large numbers you'll see a decline, until the mellenial generation reaches old age.




Damn multiple people beat me to it.

 

[agent00f]

You obfuscate madly, hiding the truth from yourself. The economics of the New Deal ushered in the creation of the broad middle class after WW2 & sustained it until Ronnie Rayguns took the Presidency & suckered us with the notion of trickle down economics.

The bottom 50% of tax filers lost nearly half their share of national income so that the share of the top 1% could double with most of that growth concentrated at the upper end.

Mere fact. Repubs quite obviously promote that trend entirely. Democrats oppose that & intend to reverse it if we can & will use the only tools available, taxes & redistribution, to accomplish it. Otherwise, the beatings will continue until morale improves.

Post ww2 middle class wage prosperity was in large part due to shortage of applicable (you know, white male) labor. The notion that capitalists want to pay more because democrats are in charge is just hilarious.

 

[Jhhnn]

Post ww2 middle class wage prosperity was in large part due to shortage of applicable (you know, white male) labor. The notion that capitalists want to pay more because democrats are in charge is just hilarious.

I said the system forced them to pay more, and it did.

It was also beneficial to black people or this wouldn't have happened-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)

 

[agent00f]

I said the system forced them to pay more, and it did.

The middle class didn't form because capitalists had to pay min wage.

It was also beneficial to black people or this wouldn't have happened-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)

Might consider improving your motto over better than sharecropping.

 

[FIVR]

Money is evil. I eschew it.




All my transactions are conducted in spice.

 

[raildogg]

But you see, for some inexplicable and fantastically mysterious reason, there are millions upon millions of middle class and poor conservatives who feel that it's worth the sacrifices they make to have the very wealthy rip them off the way they do.

As long as you and most of the others here keep playing the left vs right game, there will be zero advancement in anything. We need to move beyond this game of left vs right.

The true controllers of this country have already moved beyond this stupid game and they now control BOTH SIDES. When will you true believers ever learn this? You keep supporting one political side over the other thinking that the super elites aren't involved in it. Get real. The super elites, the top of the top, control both sides. That way, they always win no matter who "wins."

But no, you guys love to play this left vs right game night and day.

I understand that you leftist guys are upset at the Trump supporters for supporting an elite billionaire actor. I get that totally and I am with you. It shows how much this society has fallen that such a man can be elected president (another illusory position, btw). But, on the other hand, you guys support other powerful characters thinking that they are different. So you are not that much different from the Trump people - you support your own candidates with your own biases. Yeah, you might be more well read, read different material, have different social traditions but you are just as conditioned as the Trump people.

At the end I think only .01% of the population will ever move beyond politics and realize that they are not the answer. So do continue with your left vs right games.

 

[Jhhnn]

The middle class didn't form because capitalists had to pay min wage.

There was a lot more to it than that, some of which has already been mentioned.

Might consider improving your motto over better than sharecropping.

It was nonetheless better. In the present day, the job creators are automating the middle class right out of their livelihoods & there are no replacements on the horizon. Insufficient ROI, so forget about it. Bootstraps, boy! You're gonna need 'em when the Repubs get done with us.

 

[raildogg]

Society is definitely controlled, manipulated, engineered and coerced by the very top elites. That's why when it comes to the latest in social causes, fads, trends, etc. you need to be very careful when you support them or attack them. Chances are they are brought to you by the true rulers of this materialistic world.

I know, I know - this is crazy talk. But seriously, for one second, stand back from your petty little politics and look at things a little differently. Take off your political goggles for a second and realize maybe there's more to it than liberal vs conservative or democrat vs republican.

 

[Jhhnn]

As long as you and most of the others here keep playing the left vs right game, there will be zero advancement in anything. We need to move beyond this game of left vs right.

The true controllers of this country have already moved beyond this stupid game and they now control BOTH SIDES. When will you true believers ever learn this? You keep supporting one political side over the other thinking that the super elites aren't involved in it. Get real. The super elites, the top of the top, control both sides. That way, they always win no matter who "wins."

But no, you guys love to play this left vs right game night and day.

I understand that you leftist guys are upset at the Trump supporters for supporting an elite billionaire actor. I get that totally and I am with you. It shows how much this society has fallen that such a man can be elected president (another illusory position, btw). But, on the other hand, you guys support other powerful characters thinking that they are different. So you are not that much different from the Trump people - you support your own candidates with your own biases. Yeah, you might be more well read, read different material, have different social traditions but you are just as conditioned as the Trump people.

At the end I think only .01% of the population will ever move beyond politics and realize that they are not the answer. So do continue with your left vs right games.

And the inevitable BOTH SIDES song & dance.

Which party espouses failed trickle down economics & even greater inequality? Which party wants tax cuts for the financial elite & benefit cuts for our most vulnerable citizens?

It's not Democrats. Clinton campaigned on the proposition that she'd raise her own taxes & those of the rest of the people at the top to provide better lives for the people at the bottom. You won't see any Repub politician touching that proposition with a pole.

 

[Jhhnn]

Society is definitely controlled, manipulated, engineered and coerced by the very top elites. That's why when it comes to the latest in social causes, fads, trends, etc. you need to be very careful when you support them or attack them. Chances are they are brought to you by the true rulers of this materialistic world.

I know, I know - this is crazy talk. But seriously, for one second, stand back from your petty little politics and look at things a little differently. Take off your political goggles for a second and realize maybe there's more to it than liberal vs conservative or democrat vs republican.

It's been nearly 40 years of relentless right wing agitprop & highly successful top down class warfare. If that weren't true then we wouldn't be where we are today.

 

[agent00f]

There was a lot more to it than that, some of which has already been mentioned.

No, wages were abnormally high because eligible white male labor was scarce. That's why many favor the caste system where 2/3 of the population can't compete with them. Funnily enough capitalists per se didn't, which is rather why even that marx guy consider it superior to previous economic systems.

That's also why democrats backstabbing the racists was such a cataclysm for american society since it completely realigned the political interests at play, into a modern liberal vs capitalist-racist conservative parties.

It was nonetheless better. In the present day, the job creators are automating the middle class right out of their livelihoods & there are no replacements on the horizon. Insufficient ROI, so forget about it. Bootstraps, boy! You're gonna need 'em when the Repubs get done with us.

Pre civil rights democrats: arguably better than indentured slavery.

 

[raildogg]

It's been nearly 40 years of relentless right wing agitprop & highly successful top down class warfare. If that weren't true then we wouldn't be where we are today.

You ever heard of the term "Divide and Conquer"?

I am with you that many policies are specifically designed by one party and has had certain outcomes. But what I'm saying is that this political system has totally failed because it is totally controlled and manipulated by the very top level elites.

The top .01% would never risk to allow a truly "fair" system because in such a system, men like them would not be able to take advantage of it and of the people.

This is not to say that one side doesn't do more "bad" things than the other or is more hypocritical than the other. The Republicans tend to be more violent and tend to start unnecessary wars, for example. (But lately the Democrats have been pretty violent themselves but that's not important to this discussion at this point).

 

[agent00f]

You ever heard of the term "Divide and Conquer"?

Well, when you guys engage in politics you always fall prey to it. The only "victors" are the ones who truly control the game.

But like I said, this forum's members and society in general will never come to reason. They love to engage in the left vs right game. You guys can carry on playing this game.

Yeah, good thing those germans united against a common foe.

 

[raildogg]

Yeah, good thing those germans united against a common foe.

The thing is that no matter what the so-called "history" says, things are not black and white.

And the common foe is never our fellow man. A common foe is given to us by our leaders, politicians and lawmakers. They tell us who to hate, who to attack and who to demonize. Too bad most people look up and admire such men.

 

[agent00f]

The thing is that no matter what the so-called "history" says, things are not black and white.

And the common foe is never our fellow man. A common foe is given to us by our leaders, politicians and lawmakers. They tell us who to hate, who to attack and who to demonize. Too bad most people look up and admire such men.

Yeah the leaders those sheeple elected.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, wages were abnormally high because eligible white male labor was scarce. That's why many favor the caste system where 2/3 of the population can't compete with them. Funnily enough capitalists per se didn't, which is rather why even that marx guy consider it superior to previous economic systems.

That's also why democrats backstabbing the racists was such a cataclysm for american society since it completely realigned the political interests at play, into a modern liberal vs capitalist-racist conservative parties.



Pre civil rights democrats: arguably better than indentured slavery.

Bullshit. This graph tells a different story-

If white male labor were scarce then that graph would obviously be different. It wasn't.

That makes what you offer afterwards completely specious. As you point out, pre- civil rights Democrats are long gone. So are pre- civil rights Republicans, for that matter.It sure as Hell isn't the Party of Lincoln at this point.

 

[agent00f]

Bullshit. This graph tells a different story-

If white male labor were scarce then that graph would obviously be different. It wasn't.

It certainly was scarce given only 1/3 of the candidates were eligible for the newly available good jobs.

That makes what you offer afterwards completely specious. As you point out, pre- civil rights Democrats are long gone. So are pre- civil rights Republicans, for that matter.It sure as Hell isn't the Party of Lincoln at this point.

It was you who brought up the post-war economy and how american unions were always beneficial for everyone before that. Of course when that narrative was revealed to be untrue it's you changing the topic while accusing others of it. Have enough self-respect to at least be better than the degens.

 

[brycejones]

That's a problem that I will freely admit that, once carefully considered, seems enormous and intractable, not just from the standpoint of people providing for themselves, but with finding purpose, which imo is nearly if not more important.

It used to be that increased productivity was reflected in higher wages. Now the wages are remaining stagnet and the benefits are being passed on to investors.

 

[Jhhnn]

It certainly was scarce given only 1/3 of the candidates were eligible for the newly available good jobs.

That doesn't explain the honest unemployment figures from the era. If labor were scarce unemployment would obviously have been lower.

It was you who brought up the post-war economy and how american unions were always beneficial for everyone before that. Of course when that narrative was revealed to be untrue it's you changing the topic while accusing others of it. Have enough self-respect to at least be better than the degens.

It was to show what the adoption of tickle down economics has done to us. The intentional demise of unions is merely a part of that. We've had an increasing glut of labor since 1980 resulting in wage stagnation even as income for the investor class has soared. That will only intensify with greater technological advancements if Repubs have their way. It's pure class warfare.

 

[Mai72]

It's working out exactly how it should.

In life there is a pyramid. The masses (90-99%) are at the bottom, the people who play at the elite level are at the top. Now, there is entrenched welfare, people that come from old money, etc. I realize that this is real but I'm not really including these people.

Ok, as I stated earlier the people who are playing at the elite level are at the top of the pyramid. They are getting much of their information from top sources. Think reading, having systems in their lives and mentors. Many of the people that I met who were making a lot of money normally had a mentor, and were into personal development.

The masses which would be the majority are getting their info so low that it f*cks them up. Think major news, FB news feeds and tabloids.

You can only extrapolate what you know. So, many poor/middle class people who see someone who is wealthy think that they got that way by stepping on heads, cheating the system, or just because they we're lucky. In reality, it's just that they did things differently than the masses.

I believe it takes $400k a year to be considered as the 1%. Then as you get deeper it breaks down. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Elon Musk would be 0.01%. The Rockerfellas would be even higher since that's "old money."

It's just my opinion. I know many here are going to disagree. There is no conspiracy theories keep down the poor/middle class. I still believe in America.

 

[interchange]

That chart is misleading because it includes social security, a paid for item whose budget is closely related to the size of the older population. Once the baby boomer generation status dying off in large numbers you'll see a decline, until the mellenial generation reaches old age.

The graph is just misleading because most of the entitlement growth is old people. Though in fairness it's not necessarily wrong to argue they have it too good relative to everyone else; eg. guaranteed min income, free single payer heathcare, etc.

Also if people weren't selfish, capitalism wouldn't be efficient and surely such enlightened folk would move onto better ways.

Disagree with that being seriously misleading. Entitlement growth for seniors is part and parcel of this wealth/savings issue. If people are saving less because they are relying on social security and medicare to provide for them in old age, this is very important. As far as relative size of the older population influencing things, sure I'll give you that. But if we're going from 2.5% GDP to 10% GDP, normalizing this graph would require a 4-fold increase in seniors as percent of population. In fact, such a normalization is more compelling than I initially thought (about double), but still not enough.

But it's OK. As I stated, I don't think that entitlement growth is responsible for this problem. I just presented the graph to demonstrate that it certainly hasn't fixed it.

You obfuscate madly, hiding the truth from yourself. The economics of the New Deal ushered in the creation of the broad middle class after WW2 & sustained it until Ronnie Rayguns took the Presidency & suckered us with the notion of trickle down economics.

The bottom 50% of tax filers lost nearly half their share of national income so that the share of the top 1% could double with most of that growth concentrated at the upper end.

Mere fact. Repubs quite obviously promote that trend entirely. Democrats oppose that & intend to reverse it if we can & will use the only tools available, taxes & redistribution, to accomplish it. Otherwise, the beatings will continue until morale improves.

You know -- I would honestly say that your typical Chinese herbalist is more dedicated to improving the health of lives of the people they treat than your typical doctor, and certainly stands to benefit less financially from their attempts to do so. And yet, if you have coronary artery disease, I think you're more likely (though certainly far from guaranteed) to be better off going to the doctor regardless. You may trust the herbalist more. They're probably more trustworthy. But you're also more likely to die.

But, again, I'm just using this as an illustration to say that I agree that Democrats are more sincere in trying to fix the problem and have solutions that look better on the paper and resemble things that have worked* before. That still doesn't mean today's solutions will work better or at all.

But, the truth is, the patient isn't just having coronary artery disease. The patient is moments away from 100% blockage of the left main artery. The patient is seriously about to die, and even the exact right doctor intervening at the exact right time is probably going to fail. I don't know what America's widow will be like, but it probably won't be very pretty. The patient may never have a chance of being saved, but I think we ought to consider that if a solution exists it's probably going to have to come from someone other than the doctor or the herbalist.

 

[Pulsar]

Ok - two completely honest questions. A large portion of the 'rich' don't actually have huge incomes, but mostly gain money through the increase of assets like stock and other investments. So let's say we go at this with a two pronged sword.

1. We increase the taxes on people making an actual income.
2. We increase the taxes on the incomes from stocks / interest / etc.

What is to stop people in the second group from removing their money from our markets entirely and investing in the Chinese, Japanese, or other markets? What would stop a huge flood of liquid capital from leaving the country? Isn't this the same problem as the cheap labor pool - if it's available elsewhere that's where they'll go?