U.S. Economy Is Increasingly Tied to the Rich

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,286
147
106
The problem is that in a society of finite resources, one's riches come at the expense of another's. It is obviously not 1:1 and resources change, and they may drag the other up to an extent (so-called trickle down), but when a few at the top gain in wealth at an exponential rate while a far, far more numerous number of people do not change their wealth, I think we see a problem.

This is assuming that the ability to horde wealth doesn't significantly increase the mean wealth. There isn't a good example where killing off wealth hording has done better then no wealth hording.

Put another way, we only have x amount of cars and car production in the US. What is to say flat wages would increase the number of cars available/produced? I would argue that it is the pursuit of wealth that betters society for everyone. Yes, resources are finite, but we have more of them because of the wealth horders.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
So what? Oh my god, you're never going to be a top earner, or have something that someone else has, let me get out my violin. Class envy is an ugly thing.

That's really sad, in a revealing sort of way. Somehow, you seem to think that if we allow the nation's wealthiest citizens to take a bigger and bigger slice of the pie that you'll be a part of that, right?

Wrong-O, sucker. Worshipping at the altar of greed is a whole lot uglier than the class envy you project onto others. Adulation and envy are basically the same thing with a slightly different emotional emphasis.

The top 1 percent share of income has almost tripled since 1980, from <9 percent to > 23 percent in 2007. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent share has fallen by nearly a third. That's a complete reversal of the relationship in 1980.

50 percent of returns- That's half the country in the roughest terms. Can't figure out why the middle class is shrinking? There it is, right under your nose. More and more people can't afford to be middle class in commonly accepted terms.

Now project the trend into the future if you want to see something truly ugly.

This isn't about me, personally, at all. I'm entirely content with the teensy little slice of the pie that the wife and I have achieved from being in the top 20 percent of incomes for over 15 years. It's about all the honest and hard working people who never get that much or anywhere near it because of the structure of the system itself, a structure where those at the top get more and more while half the country gets less and less... no matter how hard they work. 50 percent of the returns will always fall into the lower 50 percent, by definition, and those job slots are increasingly insufficient to maintain a lifestyle commeasurate with what all working americans should receive.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
The problem is that in a society of finite resources, one's riches come at the expense of another's. It is obviously not 1:1 and resources change, and they may drag the other up to an extent (so-called trickle down), but when a few at the top gain in wealth at an exponential rate while a far, far more numerous number of people do not change their wealth, I think we see a problem.

Skoorb, you're changing the topic on me.

For one thing, we're looking at stats about income and you're wondering over into the issue of wealth; these are two different things.

We were then on the topic of the top tier earners and whether those groups are static (and whether that's important) and now you're wondering over into wealth accumulation. Again, these are two completely different things.

I do oppose wealth aggregation to the extent it creates an aristocratic class. I'm probably the only conservative type here who argues for the estate tax. Aside from a fairly limited group (e.g., Kennedys, Gores) I don't think we have a problem with that.

If somebody in their lifetime manages to accululate a great deal of wealth through talent, hard work or sheer luck, I have no problem with that.

And I believe for the most part there's a good deal of movement among the top tiers in wealth aggregation. As I have advised many clients: As hard as it is to make/get big money, it's even harder to keep it.

Here again, IMO, the problem is not with the groups in the top tier (there is a lot of moevement there), the problem is with any group perpetually stuck in the bottom.

Getting rid of the top tiers will not guarantee against a permanent bottom tier. The things which allow for people to rise into the top tiers do not force others to remain in the bottom tier.

Fern
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
That's really sad, in a revealing sort of way. Somehow, you seem to think that if we allow the nation's wealthiest citizens to take a bigger and bigger slice of the pie that you'll be a part of that, right?

No, wrong, I just don't care that there are rich people, and I don't want to be one so bad that class envy consumes me like it does you.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
No, wrong, I just don't care that there are rich people, and I don't want to be one so bad that class envy consumes me like it does you.

I'm detecting some ideologically driven reading comprehension problems and denial in your post... given that you just follow the Limbaugh method of argument- label and dismiss, w/o any sort of reasoned rebuttal at all... if it doesn't work the first time, just repeat until you're satisfied that you don't have to hear it any more...

Might as well just chant USA! USA! USA! as a way to address protesters at the GOP convention... Drown 'em out with slogans, yeh, that's it...
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
I still love the class warfare against "the rich". I SAY AGAIN!

The top 5 percent have an AGI of 160K and are dual income families. That is two white collar professionals even at a 5-10 years experience or less in any medium size city.

That is NOT RICH. Stop the jealousy and work on your career.

First off, if it is top 5% of the household income, how is it not "rich"? I understand there is some semantics involved, but if you can run into 20 people on the street and be financially compensated better than all of them, how are you not "rich"? 95% of the entire country is worse off than you, but that doesn't qualify as rich? Top 1%? Top .1%? What should the cutoff be? Taking a slice of the top 5% seems like a reasonable qualification for rich. It isn't jealousy to state a simple fact that being in the top 5% of any category, especially one as broad as an entire country, qualifies you for elite status. Top 5% in a graduating class? Top 5% at your job? Top 5% in an industry? I think most people would consider that elite, and in the case of income, rich.

Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20the%20Taxes.jpg


Looking at this chart I can see a few big flaws. You are looking at share of Federal Income Tax Bill, but this does not take into account SS or Medicare/Medicaid taxes. Those disproportionately hit the middle class, while all the money flows into the same spending pot for the government. Also, the EIC that the bottom of the population receives is basically welfare, as they have a negative income tax rate. When you average in the negative amount, it drags down the positive payments made by those in closer tax brackets. Instead of calling it an expense (it is if it is a negative number) as it should be, by claiming the EIC as tax it skews the numbers tremendously. Put that same money in the welfare pot and recalculate the figures and it changes things. It is easy to hide the burden of the working class' tax rates when you average in negative numbers from the EIC group.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
The problem is that in a society of finite resources, one's riches come at the expense of another's. It is obviously not 1:1 and resources change, and they may drag the other up to an extent (so-called trickle down), but when a few at the top gain in wealth at an exponential rate while a far, far more numerous number of people do not change their wealth, I think we see a problem.
Completely wrong.

The amount of wealth in this country today is FAR greater than it was 50 years ago and with the exception of recessions continues to grow.

The poor of today are much better off than the poor of just 20 years ago.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Note I said resources are finite but also "they may drag the other up". I never meant to portray the belief that overall wealth does not occur (hence my comment of trickle down).
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
I think PJ's argument to...

The problem is that in a society of finite resources, one's riches come at the expense of another's.

... should have been that under free market capitalism, one's riches generally come at the advancement or pleasure of others'. Of course, under crony capitalism, or corporatism, that may not be the case.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
I like how economic conservatives can't seem to grasp the concept of supply vs demand of labor
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Also,

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003723064_men26.html

Study of incomes for men in 30s: Dad had it better

American men in their 30s today are worse off than their fathers' generation, a reversal from a decade ago, when sons generally were better off than their fathers, a new study finds.

The study also says the typical American family's income has lagged far behind productivity growth since 2000, a departure from most of the post-World War II period.

The findings suggest "the up escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well," says the study, released Friday.

In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s was $35,010, the study says, 12 percent less than for men in their 30s in 1974 &#8212; their fathers' generation &#8212; adjusted for inflation. In 1994, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5 percent higher than 30 years earlier.

Outsourcing and the demise of higher-paying manufacturing jobs have contributed to the stagnation in men's incomes, Morton said. The influx of well-educated women into the work force since the 1970s also might have exerted downward pressure on men's wages, he said.

The Pew report is the first in a planned series of studies on economic mobility drawing together researchers representing think tanks from across the political spectrum, including the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation on the right and the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute on the left.

The report also found that between 1947 and 1974, productivity, or output per hour, and median family income, adjusted for inflation, roughly doubled. Between 1974 and 2000, however, productivity rose 56 percent while income rose 29 percent. Between 2000 and 2005, productivity rose 16 percent while median income fell 2 percent, challenging "the notion that a rising tide will lift all boats," the report says.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Completely wrong.

The amount of wealth in this country today is FAR greater than it was 50 years ago and with the exception of recessions continues to grow.

The poor of today are much better off than the poor of just 20 years ago.

Other than in countries where governments have been overthrown, how is that not true everywhere?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I do oppose wealth aggregation to the extent it creates an aristocratic class. I'm probably the only conservative type here who argues for the estate tax.

That's good.

Aside from a fairly limited group (e.g., Kennedys, Gores) I don't think we have a problem with that.

And that's not.

The Kennedy 'dynasty' went from one self-made man who was one of the richest in the nation, not to one that had the flaws of 'dynasty' in furthering a system that enriched them by denying wealth, justice, opportunity, rights to others - but quite the opposite, as the fortune dwindled while the family dedicated itself to serving the country with policies good for the middle class and poor.

You are completely wrong to use them as poster children for the problem aristocracy when they're the opposite.

And the Gores' wealth doesn't even qualify them to be 'poster children' for aristocracy, but he's another man who has spent decades on causes for the public good from his pushing for corrective actions on global warming, to his pushing the development of the internet, to his chairing the presidential commission on increasing government efficiency, to his running for President against our worst modern candidate, George W. Bush.

Just as Bill Gates is the exception who is a model for tycoons, the Kennedys were an exception who were models for the 'aristocracy'.

Other tycoons have dedicated billions to the opposite - trying to strengthen oligarchy in the US. Don't see them in your 'list'.