Scary new wage data

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Yea, instead you have a "you can't have mine, have theirs" attitude.

Aside from the 0.1% that win the genetics lottery, people as a whole choose their own destiny.

Yes, 90% of the population clearly chose to have no increases in income over the past 30 years. 10% chose to be unemployed. 14% chose to live in poverty.

If you're as educated in economics as you portray, you should know that things typically tend to move towards equilibriums/normal rates of returns/etc. and not wide disparities unless they're being manipulated in some way. This crap has been happening for 30 years, it's clear who the winners are, and it's getting more extreme.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You want to blame the super rich for this, but it's not the guys at the very top that are causing the discrepencies. It's the guys in the middle trying to reach the top that are the ones screwing the people over at the bottom.

Umm, you can read numbers and stuff right?

 

[JS80]

Yes, 90% of the population clearly chose to have no increases in income over the past 30 years. 10% chose to be unemployed. 14% chose to live in poverty.

If you're as educated in economics as you portray, you should know that things typically tend to move towards equilibriums/normal rates of returns/etc. and not wide disparities unless they're being manipulated in some way. This crap has been happening for 30 years, it's clear who the winners are, and it's getting more extreme.

I think you mean 10% made poor choices in life and/or is temporarily unlucky, and 14% enjoy the highest standard of living in the history of the human race. As for the 90%, congrats you just figured out most people are complacent.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I think you mean 10% made poor choices in life and/or is temporarily unlucky, and 14% enjoy the highest standard of living in the history of the human race. As for the 90%, congrats you just figured out most people are complacent.

Right, most folks are so complacent that they moved from one income earner per household to two and still have nothing to show for it. And those poor and unemployed folks are just living it up in the cheese line. I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who doesn't know that $250K a year is wealthy.

 

[JS80]

Right, most folks are so complacent that they moved from one income earner per household to two and still have nothing to show for it. And those poor and unemployed folks are just living it up in the cheese line. I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who doesn't know that $250K a year is wealthy.

I see many people at work and outside of work who don't give a shit to make more money. That's the average person.

Sorry you can't see that a couple 5 years out of college, living in Los Angeles, beginning to make $250k combined is not wealthy and will not be wealthy after a long time, especially after the wife decides to stop working to raise the kids and some fuck face like you wants to raise my taxes.

 

[Craig234]

You want to blame the super rich for this, but it's not the guys at the very top that are causing the discrepencies. It's the guys in the middle trying to reach the top that are the ones screwing the people over at the bottom.

And your evidence got left out of your post, I'm sure you have it to post.

 

[Craig234]

The good news for JS80 is, he can be as much of a son of a bitch 'screw everyone else' he wants, but as long as he's making $250K, he's going to face a large majority who have him in their crosshairs and will increase his taxes - including the extremely wealthy who know he's their cash cow and have the power to keep themselves taxed little.

And the best part is, the voting won't be by the more reasonable liberals who advocate fair taxes, it'll be by the ignorant masses who just want to screw JS80.

This is why he's an enemy of democracy, because as someone in the wealthier minority who's clueless about morality or the benefits of less concentration of wealth, it must drive him bat crazy (as we see) that the hordes he has such contempt for are given a vote to steal his money. 'Dear slimeball who doesn't make $250K a year, would you like to raise the taxes on JS80?' 'Why not, screw him'. I love democracy.

There isn't really a more considered, moral, reasonable discussion than this possible with someone like JS80, who can do no more than rationalize selfishness.

 

[Darwin333]

Duh. The real reason is this...The number of Americans making $50 million or more, the top income category in the data, fell from 131 in 2008 to 74 last year. But that’s only part of the story.

The folks who made the correct decisions stayed in the 74 and made more money as the ones who didn't make the correct decisions caused gains for the others.

And jealousy is an evil emotion, let go of it.

Betcha that a large percentage of those 74 guys are bansters who literally made their money via fraud. Still think its just being "jealous"?

 

[JS80]

The good news for JS80 is, he can be as much of a son of a bitch 'screw everyone else' he wants, but as long as he's making $250K, he's going to face a large majority who have him in their crosshairs and will increase his taxes - including the extremely wealthy who know he's their cash cow and have the power to keep themselves taxed little.

And the best part is, the voting won't be by the more reasonable liberals who advocate fair taxes, it'll be by the ignorant masses who just want to screw JS80.

This is why he's an enemy of democracy, because as someone in the wealthier minority who's clueless about morality or the benefits of less concentration of wealth, it must drive him bat crazy (as we see) that the hordes he has such contempt for are given a vote to steal his money. 'Dear slimeball who doesn't make $250K a year, would you like to raise the taxes on JS80?' 'Why not, screw him'. I love democracy.

There isn't really a more considered, moral, reasonable discussion than this possible with someone like JS80, who can do no more than rationalize selfishness.

Your premise is false because I believe that raising taxes on the top detriments not only everyone as a whole, but has negative consequences the most to those at the bottom. So in fact, it's out of my good grace and higher morality that I believe in lower taxation.

And I believe all evidence proves my thesis, and believe that you also know it, which makes you the enemy of humanity. Or an ignorant douchebag.

 

[Darwin333]

I think you mean 10% made poor choices in life and/or is temporarily unlucky, and 14% enjoy the highest standard of living in the history of the human race. As for the 90%, congrats you just figured out most people are complacent.

Actually, it is rather well documented and not hard to show that the cost of housing has risen drastically faster than wages. That means that a much larger percentage of the average persons income goes to housing now than 30 years ago. This is especially true for the middle class who has to buy a house in certain school districts due to our fucked up education system. The 2nd factor, which is much less than the first but still very significant, has been the steadily increasing cost (compared to wages) of health insurance. Obviously health insurance isn't, or wasn't, a "necessity" but a decent house and decent a decent school for your kids most definitely is. Toss in some gigantic assrapings by the banking industry and you get what we have today.

Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with it and yes, most people are complacent with a certain lifestyle. The problem is that more work today will not buy the same lifestyle that less work used to buy. The above is the why, the question is how do we fix it. Again, taxes have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Darwin333]

Your premise is false because I believe that raising taxes on the top detriments not only everyone as a whole, but has negative consequences the most to those at the bottom. So in fact, it's out of my good grace and higher morality that I believe in lower taxation.

And I believe all evidence proves my thesis, and believe that you also know it, which makes you the enemy of humanity. Or an ignorant douchebag.

If we curtailed spending today taxes would still have to go up to cover what we already owe. I don't have a thesis, I have actual laws on my side. You can try but eventually math always wins.

Interest rates must eventually go up and when they do our mandatory spending is going to shoot the moon. Cutting spending, while servicing our debt, enough to even run a relatively small deficit will cause the shotguns to come out. So you are either saying that we should risk that or default?

I ain't on Craigs side by any scope of the imagination but the math is the math. Spending must come way down and taxes, on everyone, must go up. We ain't growing our way out and we can't inflate our way out, sorry.

 

[Craig234]

Actually, it is rather well documented and not hard to show that the cost of housing has risen drastically faster than wages. That means that a much larger percentage of the average persons income goes to housing now than 30 years ago. This is especially true for the middle class who has to buy a house in certain school districts due to our fucked up education system. The 2nd factor, which is much less than the first but still very significant, has been the steadily increasing cost (compared to wages) of health insurance. Obviously health insurance isn't, or wasn't, a "necessity" but a decent house and decent a decent school for your kids most definitely is. Toss in some gigantic assrapings by the banking industry and you get what we have today.

Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with it and yes, most people are complacent with a certain lifestyle. The problem is that more work today will not buy the same lifestyle that less work used to buy. The above is the why, the question is how do we fix it. Again, taxes have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Something the right has to learn is a myth is that ultimately, it's not up to everyone to make as much as they want - there will ALWAYS be a wealth gap and limited opportunity.

I try to illustrate this sometimes with the reference to the idea of the Latin American country where 20 families own 99% of everything, and you can starve or slave.

However, the point seems wasted on the intended audience, who think everyone can be a billionare. But there are only so many goods in the world.

Sure, there is some pie growth that can increase that opportunity in theory - but note that all the pie growth in the US for 30 year has gone zero to the bottom 80%.

Even in far better times, though, you can only have so many people heading up the top positions of wealth - there can't be 1,000 CEOs of car companies each of whom has a 20% market share, there can't be 1,000 people as top ten hedge fund managers - and the nature of wealth is that if people did make a lot more, it would be inflationary.

This is a highly harmful myth that's a lie arguing against good policy that would help the majority of people. It has a nugget of truth that's exaggerated into the lie.

 

[JS80]

LOL @ you bringing up Latin America, huge income disparities with the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few ruling class exist exactly because of your socialist ideology.

 

[Acanthus]

Your premise is false because I believe that raising taxes on the top detriments not only everyone as a whole, but has negative consequences the most to those at the bottom. So in fact, it's out of my good grace and higher morality that I believe in lower taxation.

And I believe all evidence proves my thesis, and believe that you also know it, which makes you the enemy of humanity. Or an ignorant douchebag.

50 years of attempts to prove your assertion have failed.

There is no mathematical or statistical evidence that says tax rates on the rich are at or near a detrimental level. In fact, they are the lowest in the civilized world.

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL @ you bringing up Latin America, huge income disparities with the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few ruling class exist exactly because of your socialist ideology.

Gawd that's truly lame, blind in every way. The concentration of wealth that exists in Latin America has everything to do with plutocracy, dating from the Conquistadores, and with a complete lack of any mechanism that recirculates their enormous incomes into the economy, like progressive income taxes. The ruling elite don't pay taxes- the little people pay taxes, which is the Republican model for America.

 

[Craig234]

50 years of attempts to prove your assertion have failed.

There is no mathematical or statistical evidence that says tax rates on the rich are at or near a detrimental level. In fact, they are the lowest in the civilized world.

As well as the lowest since at least FDR in our country.

Top rates lowered in the 60's, lowered again in the 80's, lowered again in the last decade.

 

[JS80]

50 years of attempts to prove your assertion have failed.

There is no mathematical or statistical evidence that says tax rates on the rich are at or near a detrimental level. In fact, they are the lowest in the civilized world.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101019-703637.html
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_502313.html

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...art=410227200000&tunit=M&tlen=331&hl=en&dl=en

 

[JS80]

Gawd that's truly lame, blind in every way. The concentration of wealth that exists in Latin America has everything to do with plutocracy, dating from the Conquistadores, and with a complete lack of any mechanism that recirculates their enormous incomes into the economy, like progressive income taxes. The ruling elite don't pay taxes- the little people pay taxes, which is the Republican model for America.

The ruling elite don't pay taxes because politicians tax income streams, not wealth. The best way to achieve plutocracy is to promise the masses socialism. Keep the people down.

 

[Jhhnn]

The ruling elite don't pay taxes because politicians tax income streams, not wealth. The best way to achieve plutocracy is to promise the masses socialism. Keep the people down.

If you were actually trying to make sense, you failed. With Uncle Sam's help, the ruling elite in Latin America has ruthlessly suppressed any sort of socialist initiatives, over and over again for the last 100 years. El Salvador, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Argentina, and more.

If you had the vaguest idea what you're talking about, you'd be dangerous. Stick with what you do best- just whine about paying the lowest tax rates in the first world, as if you're being horribly abused by them...

 

[JS80]

My neighbor steals less money from me then some French fuck would so it makes it OK?

 

[dmcowen674]

Wow there's only 75 people making 50M plus?

What's more amazing is that they all post on AT.

 

[daishi5]

Just for some fun. Richest actors

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/08/de...siness-entertainment-highest-paid-actors.html

It looks like 2 over 50 million. 75 for Depp, and 53 for Stiller. So that leaves us with 72

Athletes
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/17/top-earning-athletes-business-sports-top-earning-athletes.html

This is harder, cutoff for the top 20 is $30 Million. Some of them are over, at least we know tiger is with $110. 6th place earned $40 Million. So we know we only have a couple here as well, just guessing at 3. so, 69 left.

CEO's

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_ceo_pay/

Ellison at 78.4 Million, next is Elliot at 33.4 million. So only 1 CEO is in this group.

So amongst Hollywood, athletes and Ceo's, 20 Athletes make as much or more as the 2nd highest CEO. Hollywood stars seem to make slightly more than CEOs, the highest CEO makes a little more than the highest star, the 2nd place star makes $ 20 million more than 2nd place CEO. I think CEOs make more total than the athletes and stars as a group, but I think it would be due to how many CEOs there are compared to how many stars/athletes there are, and I don't think the pay scale is as sharp a decline for the CEOs.

Who makes up the other 68 members of this group, I don't know yet, but none of those groups are even close to the average.

 

[chucky2]

That all may be true, but, unlike CEO's, athlete's actually have to produce (or in theory they produce for the money they make). CEO's just need to make 1/2 no brainer decisions, and rub shoulders with the board. Only when they're a complete disaster do they get axed, and even then, they get their golden parachute.

I'm much more comfortable with an overpaid athlete than an overpaid CEO...

Chuck

 

[JS80]

That all may be true, but, unlike CEO's, athlete's actually have to produce (or in theory they produce for the money they make). CEO's just need to make 1/2 no brainer decisions, and rub shoulders with the board. Only when they're a complete disaster do they get axed, and even then, they get their golden parachute.

I'm much more comfortable with an overpaid athlete than an overpaid CEO...

Chuck

lolololololol says the peon minion that's easily replaceable with a monkey.

 

[BeauJangles]

Are we talking salary here or total compensation / income?