Income Inequality Increases When Better Educated People Marry each Other

[Atreus21]

Summary of Income Changes since 1960
Well educated couples +43%
Less educated couples -20%

Two Questions
One
Two well educated people marrying each other. I always perceived that this was a good thing. But since it leads to increased income inequality, is this not such a good thing? What is your opinion?

Two
How, if at all, should this academic finding impact the administration's promise to tackle economic inequality? What is your opinion?

Uno

We need to stop letting people marry at all. We need to stop letting people make money to better their lot in life. Inequality cannot be tolerated.

 

[1prophet]

They made a movie about this, some even dare to call it a documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8rhIZJAdd0

 

[nehalem256]

We get it, you hate women!

Acknowledging reality is hating women now?

 

[Zaap]

Wait, what??

"Income inequality"... with who?

Two "better educated people" have a greater "income inequality" with each other, or compared other couples with less education?

If it's the later: no fuckin' duh.

 

[MagickMan]

We get it, you hate women!

Modern feminism != "women", but please continue on with your ignorant rant.

 

[Bitek]

Actually I was blaming feminism.

Of course, I notice you didn't bother disagreeing with my analysis. Probably because its pretty much indisputable.

Feminism naturally encourages single motherhood and for educated professional to marry each other. The inevitable result of this is increased inequality.

I think a better interpretation is men are now holding out for rich wives too. The ideal wife is now beautiful AND successful.

It's all men's fault :sneaky:

 

[nehalem256]

I think a better interpretation is men are now holding out for rich wives too. The ideal wife is now beautiful AND successful.

It's all men's fault :sneaky:

Seems fairly obvious that one of the goals of feminism is to make men want successful women.

Otherwise all feminists would have to become lesbians.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So lets see here:

Poorest people: Families headed by single mom's

Richest people: Families with 2 highly educated professionals.

Seems to me that the real cause of increased inequality is feminism

Sure because you take one apple, add it to 4 tires and end up with a flounder. Hey, your logic is fun. wheeeee...

 

[Victorian Gray]

Actually I was blaming feminism.

Of course, I notice you didn't bother disagreeing with my analysis. Probably because its pretty much indisputable.

Feminism naturally encourages single motherhood and for educated professional to marry each other. The inevitable result of this is increased inequality.[/QUOTE]

Why do you insist on telling lies? Bad parenting?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Equality in one thing can lead to inequality in another.

And again I do not see you bothering to dispute my analysis.

That might be because there actually was no analysis to be found.

 

[nehalem256]

Sure because you take one apple, add it to 4 tires and end up with a flounder. Hey, your logic is fun. wheeeee...

Which point are you disputing?

(1) That the increase in single motherhood is related to feminism
(2) That feminism encourages women to pursue careers
(3) That (1) and (2) will lead to increased inequality

 

[Victorian Gray]

Seems fairly obvious that one of the goals of feminism is to make men want successful women.

Otherwise all feminists would have to become lesbians.

And you just keep doubling down on the stupid. I suppose one has to give you some props for tenacity.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Which point are you disputing?

(1) That the increase in single motherhood is related to feminism
(2) That feminism encourages women to pursue careers
(3) That (1) and (2) will lead to increased inequality

Well, I guess you could take 7 eggs and mix them with a zebra and end up with a fire truck.

 

[shady28]

Summary of Income Changes since 1960
Well educated couples +43%
Less educated couples -20%

Two Questions
One
Two well educated people marrying each other. I always perceived that this was a good thing. But since it leads to increased income inequality, is this not such a good thing? What is your opinion?

Two
How, if at all, should this academic finding impact the administration's promise to tackle economic inequality? What is your opinion?

Uno

This is the big lie about the so-called top 1%, or even top 5%.

I keep saying - what is the top 1%? An 70k/yr nurse married to an 80k/yr engineer pops 150k/yr household income. That is absolutely not unusual. Yet if you listen to people on this board, you'd think we're talking about some kind of uber rich greedy top 1%er.

 

[nehalem256]

And you just keep doubling down on the stupid. I suppose one has to give you some props for tenacity.

I am not sure what I wrote there should in anyway be controversial.

Well, I guess you could take 7 eggs and mix them with a zebra and end up with a fire truck.

so you dont want to address what I wrote

 

[Victorian Gray]

I am not sure what I wrote there should in anyway be controversial.



so you dont want to address what I wrote

There is nothing to address in what you write. You do not present a coherent argument/position/state of existence.

As for 'not wanting to address':

Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have or who do not want children should be allowed to legally marry? YES/NO

 

[nehalem256]

There is nothing to address in what you write. You do not present a coherent argument/position/state of existence.

As for 'not wanting to address':

Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have or who do not want children should be allowed to legally marry? YES/NO

I answered your question with a multiple paragraph reply previously. It isnt my problem if you have difficulty understanding english, as seems likely.

 

[PokerGuy]

The findings are obviously not surprising. You put two successful people together, and you get more success. Put two unsuccessful (at least financially) people together and you get less financial success.

The underlying causes for these trends are the interesting part.

nehamlem256 may or may not be correct, but I notice some of the usual dolts can't seem to come to grips with some of the uncomfortable truths and would rather try to bash him (or rather, a stawman) instead of discussing the causes.

Uno makes some good points about the inherent conflicting goals.

Another interesting thing about these trends is that it's a spiral. Kids from these marriages of two high income earners will have infinitely more options to build their education than other kids, which will lead to an even bigger gap between the have's and have nots. It's a fundamental segmentation in our society -- those who make poor choices or happen to be born to financially unsuccessful people will get trapped and their kids will also be more likely to fail. The opportunity to switch from one group to the other decreases over time, which is not good for society.

 

[Exterous]

Wow what a eye opening study!! I never would have guessed this outcome!!!

The point is not about well educated couples earning more but how it relates to the widening income gap. As a college degree is more and more required for a job the disparity between those with just a HS diploma increases. It would be interesting to see what happens if we examine income inequality within the two brackets of education.

This is the big lie about the so-called top 1%, or even top 5%.

I keep saying - what is the top 1%? An 70k/yr nurse married to an 80k/yr engineer pops 150k/yr household income. That is absolutely not unusual. Yet if you listen to people on this board, you'd think we're talking about some kind of uber rich greedy top 1%er.

Well considering your example is not even in the top 5% I think its a bit skewed. I don't see that much angst directed at those below the top 5% OR those earning 150k/yr or under

 

[Matt1970]

This is the big lie about the so-called top 1%, or even top 5%.

I keep saying - what is the top 1%? An 70k/yr nurse married to an 80k/yr engineer pops 150k/yr household income. That is absolutely not unusual. Yet if you listen to people on this board, you'd think we're talking about some kind of uber rich greedy top 1%er.

150K is not the top 1%. That would be top 5%.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well considering your example is not even in the top 5% I think its a bit skewed. I don't see that much angst directed at those below the top 5% OR those earning 150k/yr or under

Ok, so 1 guy making $175k is fine (he's very successful, but not one of the evil greedy 1%'ers).

One woman making $175k is also fine, she's very successful but not part of the evil greedy 1%'ers.

Lets say those two highly successful people meet and decide to get married... so now they make $350k per year, and based on what you see in the media and from obummer and his minions are now obviously part of the evil greedy 1% that is ruining the country and oppressing the poor

 

[Exterous]

Ok, so 1 guy making $175k is fine (he's very successful, but not one of the evil greedy 1%'ers).

One woman making $175k is also fine, she's very successful but not part of the evil greedy 1%'ers.

Lets say those two highly successful people meet and decide to get married... so now they make $350k per year, and based on what you see in the media and from obummer and his minions are now obviously part of the evil greedy 1% that is ruining the country and oppressing the poor

Thats not the 1% by a lot of accounts either (Some do place it at or below $350k but most are above $360k)

That said I have long pointed out that targeting the 1% is a terrible mistake but one the ultra-wealthy want everyone to make. Really its the 0.01% that are skewing the numbers for the top 1% but they are a very very small group and certianly one that no one really cares if they suffers any type of hardship.

But if you go after the 1% well then you actually have some numbers on your side. Not very many but your populous influence greatly increases. And boy are the indignant. So many calls for them to pay more or how they are earning so much more yet they really aren't. So they will steadfastly defend actions against the 1% while the 0.01% make all the money

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/how-you-i-and-everyone-got-the-top-1-percent-all-wrong/359862/

 

[glenn1]

But if you go after the 1% well then you actually have some numbers on your side. Not very many but your populous influence greatly increases. And boy are the indignant. So many calls for them to pay more or how they are earning so much more yet they really aren't. So they will steadfastly defend actions against the 1% while the 0.01% make all the money.

Yep, we need to target for punishment all the Steve Jobs of the world. You know they only became successful because they physically forced us at gunpoint to spend our money on things they created like iPods. And damn you Michael Jordan for chaining us to the chair and propping our eyelids open with toothpicks to guarantee we'd have to watch him play.

It's such an diabolical plan they hatched - force those who hate the rich to be the very ones who supplied that wealth. Sometimes they'd even have them demanding to hand their money over, creating mob scenes in front of the Apple store or people getting trampled at WalMart in order to hand over their money. Now that's pure evil.

 

[werepossum]

Ok, so 1 guy making $175k is fine (he's very successful, but not one of the evil greedy 1%'ers).

One woman making $175k is also fine, she's very successful but not part of the evil greedy 1%'ers.

Lets say those two highly successful people meet and decide to get married... so now they make $350k per year, and based on what you see in the media and from obummer and his minions are now obviously part of the evil greedy 1% that is ruining the country and oppressing the poor

The proggies hate them just as much when they are individually earning $175k.

 

[Exterous]

Yep, we need to target for punishment all the Steve Jobs of the world. You know they only became successful because they physically forced us at gunpoint to spend our money on things they created like iPods. And damn you Michael Jordan for chaining us to the chair and propping our eyelids open with toothpicks to guarantee we'd have to watch him play.

It's such an diabolical plan they hatched - force those who hate the rich to be the very ones who supplied that wealth. Sometimes they'd even have them demanding to hand their money over, creating mob scenes in front of the Apple store or people getting trampled at WalMart in order to hand over their money. Now that's pure evil.

This is not about 'punishing' this is about appropriate treatment. Surely you realize that not everyone was actually successful. There are quite a few CEOs who made gobs of money ruining companies. Just take a look at HPs CEO woes. The pay does appear to be a bit out sized compared to value for many companies even if the CEO or C levels aren't ruining a company

There are also quite a few schemes out there for loopholes that need to be closed. Really any trust that uses the schedule 7520 interest rates needs to be looked at. Carried Interest really needs to be looked at. It good that they finally added another bracket to LTCG but they should probably add another one there as well. Loose definitions of charities, 'Vacation home' yachts ('mortgage' deduction) etc etc

I don't think this is 'evil' but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed