Inequalities in wealth haven't exploded.

[Anarchist420]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/not-insulting-our-mothers/

Never trust figures given from the government (never trust the government actually) and always analyze stats you're given, especially if the government gives them to you.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/not-insulting-our-mothers/

Never trust figures given from the government (never trust the government actually) and always analyze stats you're given, especially if the government gives them to you.

The arguments made in that article are incredibly week.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, it has, as the many, many charts and other information posted show.

Never trust bad ideologues.

 

[Dman8777]

They haven't exploded, they've sky-rocketed.

 

[Demo24]

The CBO disagrees:

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485&zzz=42148

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

• 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
• 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
• Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
• 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
• The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.
• The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
• Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
• All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

 

[Spikesoldier]

so it shows a trend that the 1% was rising even before the recession really hit.

we all know the rich get even richer during recessions, thats common knowledge.

 

[JS80]

Wealth gap may increase but standards of living is highest in human history.

 

[soundforbjt]

Wealth gap may increase but standards of living is highest in human history.

And? That's justifies it in your mind, right?

 

[JS80]

And? That's justifies it in your mind, right?

There's nothing to justify. People who are good at making money will make a lot of money.

 

[dmcowen674]

The 1% are clearly getting nervous as they should be as evidenced by their posts on here.

 

[Craig234]

And? That's justifies it in your mind, right?

That works with so many things.

"The genocide is bad, but the standard of living is the highest in history."

"The presidency being changed to an auction is bad, but the standard of living..."

"The President nuking the city he doesn't like was terrible, but the standard of living..."

"The repeal of the second amendment is bad, but the standard of living..."

 

[Albatross]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/artificial-intelligence

This is the biggest problem in advanced economies and wealth inequality is just a symptom.

"Mr Ford has identified over 50m jobs in America—nearly 40% of all employment—which, to a greater or lesser extent, could be performed by a piece of software running on a computer"

 

[Ausm]

They haven't exploded, they've sky-rocketed.

:whiste:

 

[Jhhnn]

There's nothing to justify. People who are good at making money will make a lot of money.

And at some point or another, it won't make any difference in their lifestyles, but they'll keep doing it anyway as an exercise in power. At some point or another, them taking their share becomes oppressive to the rest of society, particularly in a recession/depression like today.

If the current situation requires sacrifice, and I think it does, then those who've benefited most from the system need to be first in line to make those sacrifices, because they created the situation in the first place. America's financial elite wasn't pushed into nearly collapsing the economy- they led us to this place. It's the way they made it, the way they wanted it to be, along with some unintended consequences. They need to bear some of the burden of those consequences along with the rest of us. If not, the divide between the haves and the have-nots will advance exponentially, threatening democracy and the whole idea of what it means to be American.

 

[Engineer]

Nope...all the old people have all the money. All the young'ens have to do is wait around Wall Street until the old people die!

 

[Fern]

The CBO disagrees:

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485&zzz=42148

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.
The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

That info is not disputing the info from the OP's link.

E.g., two main points in the OP's article are:

1. We do have economic mobility. The people in the bottom or top for any given year are not the same people from year-to-year. I can personally testify that they are NOT. The CBO chart has nothing to do, doesn't even claim/attempt to, as far people moving up or down in income classification.

2. The Growth in income disparity hasn't grown significantly since the mid-1990's. The CBO chart you linked is not helpful here. We would need to income disparity growth from 1979 to 1995, and compare it 1979-2007 or see it from 1995-2007 to see if the OP's article's claim is correct.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

1.) Economic mobility rarely means that someone from the bottom goes to the top, it usually is a one quintile shift if it occurs at all. (and remember, America has fallen behind in economic mobility as compared to Europe) People may migrate from one to the other in any given year, but it's not like the people earning half a million dollars this year are making 50k next year.

2.) This is the most misleading part of that bullshit article. The actual complaint about inequality in America is that the top 1% of earners are making off with far more of the nation's income than before. This is indisputably true. The gini coefficients used in this are referring to quintiles, which basically entirely fails to measure what we're actually talking about. If there is insufficient granularity in the measurement to capture the phenomenon under discussion, you can't actually use it as evidence for your result.

I find it highly unlikely that the author of that post doesn't know this, and so I can only assume he is purposefully misleading his readers.

EDIT: Oh, and in case anyone wants a chart that details the behavior of the top 1% over all time periods, here you go:

 

[hal2kilo]

The CBO disagrees:

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485&zzz=42148

Yeabutt, that's infomation from the ebull librul gubmint.

 

[Jhhnn]

That info is not disputing the info from the OP's link.

E.g., two main points in the OP's article are:

1. We do have economic mobility. The people in the bottom or top for any given year are not the same people from year-to-year. I can personally testify that they are NOT. The CBO chart has nothing to do, doesn't even claim/attempt to, as far people moving up or down in income classification.

2. The Growth in income disparity hasn't grown significantly since the mid-1990's. The CBO chart you linked is not helpful here. We would need to income disparity growth from 1979 to 1995, and compare it 1979-2007 or see it from 1995-2007 to see if the OP's article's claim is correct.

Fern

Heh. Our income mobility is more perceived than real- see fig 3-

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP American Dream Report.pdf

The OP's linked piece is as expected- Libertopian fringe-whack cites the same sort of source...

 

[ElFenix]

(Effects from the Great Recession would be cyclical not secular and would not count against Fitzgerald’s conclusion.)

problem is if this is the new norm rather than cyclical.

1.) Economic mobility rarely means that someone from the bottom goes to the top, it usually is a one quintile shift if it occurs at all. (and remember, America has fallen behind in economic mobility as compared to Europe) People may migrate from one to the other in any given year, but it's not like the people earning half a million dollars this year are making 50k next year.

iirc, europe leads the US in people in bottom half making their way to the top half but US still leads europe in people in 3rd quarter making their way to 4th quarter or top 10% (something like that).

 

[Doppel]

Yes, it has, as the many, many charts and other information posted show.

Never trust bad ideologues.

win

Saw this today, an uplifting number. http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/07/news/economy/wealth_gap_age/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

 

[Engineer]

win

Saw this today, an uplifting number. http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/07/news/economy/wealth_gap_age/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

Based on the 170,000+ number, people over 65 really don't have much. Not prepared at all. Better hope SS doesn't go bust too soon.

 

[Fern]

1.) Economic mobility rarely means that someone from the bottom goes to the top, it usually is a one quintile shift if it occurs at all. -snip-

There are quite a few athletes that make the huge jump every year. About 225 are drafted out of college each year and their base salary plus signing bonus, roster bonus, and LTBE earnings place them in top 1% of earners. There's also supplemental draft etc.

There are also other sports to add to that.

You've got emerging musicians who'll go from nowhere to top 1%. See rappers etc.

You've got people entering the workforce who'll make it. A friend of my son graduated and landed a part on a TV series. He went from low to top 1%. Every year somebody new, actually quite a few, will pop up on TV (cable news or series) or star in a movie.

You've got lawyers (and perhaps their client) who hit it big. See John Edwards.

Some ivy league college kids come from wealthy parents and will make the big bucks, but some are from poorer families and attend on scholarships. Some of them will make the big bucks right away.

Somebody will come from nowhere with a new website.

I hear some people who started medical pot stores are making it big. or have until they were busted.

Some young chef will get famous and make the big bucks.

Some will make it in (commissioned) sales. Some in construction once they get that 1st decent/good contract.

There are many ways to make it straight to the top. The 'safe route' isn't usually one of them, though. Graduate college with a degree in management and become an employee - not ever likely to make it quickly to the top. Same for most other employees.

Then there's a whooooole lot of ways to fall from the top.

IMO, the only ones we need to concern ourselves with are those who merely inherent it. But most of the top earners aren't in that class.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

win

Saw this today, an uplifting number. http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/07/news/economy/wealth_gap_age/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

I hope people understand that most of the difference is due to housing bubbles.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

There are quite a few athletes that make the huge jump every year. About 225 are drafted out of college each year and their base salary plus signing bonus, roster bonus, and LTBE earnings place them in top 1% of earners. There's also supplemental draft etc.

There are also other sports to add to that.

You've got emerging musicians who'll go from nowhere to top 1%. See rappers etc.

You've got people entering the workforce who'll make it. A friend of my son graduated and landed a part on a TV series. He went from low to top 1%. Every year somebody new, actually quite a few, will pop up on TV (cable news or series) or star in a movie.

You've got lawyers (and perhaps their client) who hit it big. See John Edwards.

Some ivy league college kids come from wealthy parents and will make the big bucks, but some are from poorer families and attend on scholarships. Some of them will make the big bucks right away.

Somebody will come from nowhere with a new website.

I hear some people who started medical pot stores are making it big. or have until they were busted.

Some young chef will get famous and make the big bucks.

Some will make it in (commissioned) sales. Some in construction once they get that 1st decent/good contract.

There are many ways to make it straight to the top. The 'safe route' isn't usually one of them, though. Graduate college with a degree in management and become an employee - not ever likely to make it quickly to the top. Same for most other employees.

Then there's a whooooole lot of ways to fall from the top.

IMO, the only ones we need to concern ourselves with are those who merely inherent it. But most of the top earners aren't in that class.

Fern

Economic mobility is good but the growing inequality is still something to be concerned about. The other is issue is that I am beginning to question how meritocratic that mobility is. You can have a lot of mobility but it's driven in large part by chance what good is it?