Income gains 1947 to 2007. Looking for honest answer.

[HomerJS]

Let me start by saying this is not intended to be a partisan thread. I'm asking for honest opinions not talking points or name calling (please try). I posted an earlier thread showing income disparity from 1979-2007.

The Washington Post has charted income gains from 1947 to the present.

Here is 1979-2005 blown up so results can be seen better

Just want to make a few observation and stipulations. From 1947 to 1984 the entire spectrum of income groups were rising which I say is a good thing. Something happened from 1984 to the present to cause a severe split between the 1% and the rest of the country. This is a bad thing. The gap started under Reagan but ballooned under Clinton so I'm saying it is a bi-partisan problem.

Before we can get a solution for this we need to ascertain the cause. Any ideas? Please be constructive.

I'm not well versed on economics but I'll shoot down one theory, its the fault of the 99% they are not seeing the same results of the 1%. I've been told and I agree capitalism dictates if you can add value you will make money. Wall Street seems to have managed to throw this axiom on it ass. WS CEOs bankrupted their companies, brought down our economy and were bailed out by the US taxpayer. Considering these CEOs did the polar opposite of add value wouldn't capitalism dictate they lose their jobs? On the contrary they get to keep their big salaries, bonuses and all the other perks. Herein lies one of the issues of OWS.

Again looking for constructive reasons. Thank you.

 

[Engineer]

n/m....already covered in the OP. Was too quick to post without reading. Sorry.

 

[mshan]

In fact, income inequality has gotten so extreme here that the US now ranks 93rd in the world in "income equality." China's ahead of us. So is India. So is Iran:

And then there are taxes... It's a great time to make a boatload of money in America, because taxes on the nation's highest-earners are close to the lowest they've ever been:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what...-chinas-ahead-of-us-so-is-india-so-is-iran-19


There is the element of increased productivity, so profits should be going up higher than wages, but I doubt to this extent, except for 8 years of "government of, for, and by the corporation" (Jim Cramer used to crow this saying over and over again during bubble years) under the previous administration...

 

[Double Trouble]

Let me start by saying this is not intended to be a partisan thread. I'm asking for honest opinions not talking points or name calling (please try). I posted an earlier thread showing income disparity from 1979-2007.

The Washington Post has charted income gains from 1947 to the present.

Here is 1979-2005 blown up so results can be seen better

Just want to make a few observation and stipulations. From 1947 to 1984 the entire spectrum of income groups were rising which I say is a good thing. Something happened from 1984 to the present to cause a severe split between the 1% and the rest of the country. This is a bad thing. The gap started under Reagan but ballooned under Clinton so I'm saying it is a bi-partisan problem.

Before we can get a solution for this we need to ascertain the cause. Any ideas? Please be constructive.

I'm not well versed on economics but I'll shoot down one theory, its the fault of the 99% they are not seeing the same results of the 1%. I've been told and I agree capitalism dictates if you can add value you will make money. Wall Street seems to have managed to throw this axiom on it ass. WS CEOs bankrupted their companies, brought down our economy and were bailed out by the US taxpayer. Considering these CEOs did the polar opposite of add value wouldn't capitalism dictate they lose their jobs? On the contrary they get to keep their big salaries, bonuses and all the other perks. Herein lies one of the issues of OWS.

Again looking for constructive reasons. Thank you.

I know it's not going to be well received by many, but this isn't the result of some specific government action or administration. As you can see, the difference between the elite wealthy and the rest spiked during Clinton's term. IMO it has a lot more to do with the fact that because of the increased sophistication and complexity of the financial system, those with great wealth have at their disposal a lot more tools to take advantage of flaws in the system than the average person. They will do better than the average person no matter which party is in power because they simply have the leverage and tools that others don't.

For example, the elite rich and power brokers were able to cash in on the dot com boom of the 90's, with inside tracks on IPO's before the "common" investor, and were then able to assume less risky positions as the dot com bubble burst. End result, they gained tremendously in wealth, while most others first gained some and then lost some.

I'm not a fan of the growing wealth disparity, I think it's a detriment to the country, but I can't think of any feasible mechanism that can be used to help bring things back into balance, short of simply stealing the money of those with wealth, which is unacceptable as well.

 

[PeshakJang]

Come here looking for honest answers? Fat chance. Give it 5 posts and Craig will be here with more pseudointellectual garbage based in conjecture and hyperbole... That's about as close as you'll get.

Why don't you find a breakdown of who is in the '1%', how much money they make, and what they do. Then come back and explain why you think Hess people having more money than most somehow prevents you from accomplishing your aims. Do all this with a shred of intellectual honesty and you'll have more answers than you'll get from 'some people'...

Save234

 

[mshan]

 

[a777pilot]

Outstanding!

All in all, it looks like we, here in the USA, are doing well. Good for us.

Now go back and see if there is any mobility from the bottom into the top.

A lot, not all, of this nation's very wealthy started from very modest means.

I don't care if there is income distribution inequities. Who cares? I for one do not. All I care about is that there is for the most part a level playing field allowing those with the better "mouse trap" to move up. It certainly would appear there are many that are moving on up.

Jobs, Gates, Dell, Buffett..........

 

[mshan]

And, by the way, few people would have a problem with inequality if the American Dream were still fully intact—if it were easy to work your way into that top 1%. But, unfortunately, social mobility in this country is also near an all-time low:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what...ix-months-of-this-year-is-211-billion-nice-33






When you can borrow money for nothing, and lend it back to the government risk-free for a few percentage points, you can COIN MONEY. And the banks are doing that. According to IRA, the "net interest margin" made by US banks in the first six months of this year is $211 Billion. Nice!:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what...-this-country-is-also-near-an-all-time-low-20

 

[halik]

Compare long term capital gains rates from over the last 20 years and the effective tax rates for the top 400 filers.

This is how the extremely wealthy get compensated. We're talking 0.1-0.01% here, not the 1% bullshit.

On the topic of the sound bitey 1%

Or direct comparison of the 1% versus the actually-rich

 

[Double Trouble]

I'm not sure I see a point in your two slides. So profit has been going up, while wages have been stagnant. So what? The two are not tied to each other. Supply and demand drives wages, and with so much technology work now being cheaply done overseas, it stands to reason that wages would not keep pace with profits.

I'm not saying that's a good thing, just saying the two are not connected and we shouldn't expect them to be.

 

[cubby1223]

Yes, liberals hate "the 1%" for income disparity.

This, the 37,849,373th thread showing off that detail, has really touched me in a way that the previous 37,849,272 threads could not achieve.

Thank you.

 

[UberNeuman]

Come here looking for honest answers? Fat chance. Give it 5 posts and Craig will be here with more pseudointellectual garbage based in conjecture and hyperbole... That's about as close as you'll get.

Why don't you find a breakdown of who is in the '1%', how much money they make, and what they do. Then come back and explain why you think Hess people having more money than most somehow prevents you from accomplishing your aims. Do all this with a shred of intellectual honesty and you'll have more answers than you'll get from 'some people'...

Save234

Perhaps you could state your case without whining about what another member may offer...

\it tends to dampen any point you had wished to make..

 

[woolfe9999]

I know it's not going to be well received by many, but this isn't the result of some specific government action or administration. As you can see, the difference between the elite wealthy and the rest spiked during Clinton's term. IMO it has a lot more to do with the fact that because of the increased sophistication and complexity of the financial system, those with great wealth have at their disposal a lot more tools to take advantage of flaws in the system than the average person. They will do better than the average person no matter which party is in power because they simply have the leverage and tools that others don't.

For example, the elite rich and power brokers were able to cash in on the dot com boom of the 90's, with inside tracks on IPO's before the "common" investor, and were then able to assume less risky positions as the dot com bubble burst. End result, they gained tremendously in wealth, while most others first gained some and then lost some.

I'm not a fan of the growing wealth disparity, I think it's a detriment to the country, but I can't think of any feasible mechanism that can be used to help bring things back into balance, short of simply stealing the money of those with wealth, which is unacceptable as well.

You acknowledge that high income disparity is a detriment, yet you consider progressive taxation as theft (your word "stealing"), and you offer no solutions. Realize that the problem is not only not going way, it's on a worsening trend, and where it stops, nobody knows. How bad does it have to get before we decide well, gee, maybe we should do something about it or we're going to be a essentially a developing country? What's more important, the principle that progressive taxation is theft, or that we not live in a shithole of a country? In a battle between ideology and material reality, I know where I come out.

- wolf

 

[mshan]

Double Trouble:

Those graphs were just to show how much of this took place during the Bush bubble years (I think second Bush tax cut for the rich in 2003 really poured gasoline on fire), not the Clinton years:

 

[glenn1]

Here's another perspective. Just as important (or even more so) than how "evenly" things are dispersed is how total well-being for all is maximized. In other words, it's not only how one's relative slice of the pie compares to others, but how large the pie is altogether.

 

[a777pilot]

Yes, liberals hate "the 1%" for income disparity.

This, the 37,849,373th thread showing off that detail, has really touched me in a way that the previous 37,849,272 threads could not achieve.

Thank you.

LOL!

Good one.

 

[glenn1]

Double Trouble:

Those graphs were just to show how much of this took place during the Bush bubble years (I think second Bush tax cut for the rich really poured gasoline on fire), not the Clinton years:

Or you can show the same chart in logarithmic format so that it doesn't look quite so scary.

 

[SamurAchzar]

In a battle between ideology and material reality, I know where I come out.

- wolf

It's not ideology, it's morals. Unless you consider their money yours - and can legally point to that - you have no right to take it from them. Progressive taxation for such a limited, focused group of individuals is no more than organized robbery, especially when - as far as I know - there is no existing mechanism to tax them for their holdings and equity that constitutes the majority of their wealth.

We have inequality because we are, well, unequal. Why is this concept so alien to many?

 

[UberNeuman]

It's not ideology, it's morals. Unless you consider their money yours - and can legally point to that - you have no right to take it from them. Progressive taxation for such a limited, focused group of individuals is no more than organized robbery, especially when - as far as I know - there is no existing mechanism to tax them for their holdings and equity that constitutes the majority of their wealth.

We have inequality because we are, well, unequal. Why is this concept so alien to many?

Ayn Rand approved....

\and at the bitter end, guess who stuck their little hand out for help...

 

[mshan]

glenn1:

Either graph, look what happened around 2003 or so (we went parabolic).

There was too much cheap money sloshing around the globe, probably leading directly to the housing bubble... (which I think started around 2003, picked up steam in 2004, and really went out of control in 2005 or so, and really just started to turnover around 2007, I think). Second Bush tax cuts just poured gasoline over a smoldering fire and ignited an inferno for which many homeowners are now paying the price (seriously underwater on their mortgage and home worth a lot less than what they paid).

 

[Howard]

Or you can show the same chart in logarithmic format so that it doesn't look quite so scary.

But there's nothing logarithmic about it. To adjust the scale that way would be very sneaky.

 

[Double Trouble]

You acknowledge that high income disparity is a detriment, yet you consider progressive taxation as theft (your word "stealing"), and you offer no solutions.

I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't referring to progressive taxation as stealing, I meant short of actually simply confiscating their wealth, there are very few feasible options available that can reverse the trend. Progressive taxation is just going to be nickle and dimes in the grand scheme, unless the rates are adjusted dramatically. For example, nobody thinks an extra .5% on the wealthy will actually put a dent in that trend, do they? No, you'd need dramatic changes, and that simply won't happen because those with the wealth won't allow it to.

Beyond that, as long as I don't think the government spends money wisely (I think there's a tremendous amount of waste), I would not support increased taxation of any kind. First, clean up your spending, then lets talk taxes.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Outstanding!

All in all, it looks like we, here in the USA, are doing well. Good for us.

Now go back and see if there is any mobility from the bottom into the top.

A lot, not all, of this nation's very wealthy started from very modest means.

I don't care if there is income distribution inequities. Who cares? I for one do not. All I care about is that there is for the most part a level playing field allowing those with the better "mouse trap" to move up. It certainly would appear there are many that are moving on up.

Jobs, Gates, Dell, Buffett..........

Nice selfish attitude you've got there. Enjoy being a worthless son of a bitch.

Oh, and btw:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

 

[SamurAchzar]

Ayn Rand approved....

Ayn Rand's underlying message is as opposed to popular thinking, wealth is a product of the work of the talented. Wealth does not magically appear at a whim of protesters, even if they are 99% of the population.

As far as I know, to this date it has not been disproved.

 

[PrinceofWands]

A couple interesting points about the hourly wage chart.

Does it control for salaried vs hourly employees? Does it control for less than full-time hours? Does it take into account unemployment?

In general, how well do earnings charts control for purchasing power? Even adjusting for modern dollars is useless...what matters is what that allows those dollars to buy. In other words, what could a person working 40 hours buy in 1955, and what can 40 hours buy now? That's the only really useful measure. Of course, you also have to account for product improvements...but ONLY if you also account for product life.