US: Gap between rich and poor widest on record.

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Click me.

Thought that this was interesting. Not bitching about wealthy people so much as I am watching the foundation being torn out from the bottom as people at the lower end of the spectrum have fewer and fewer options for a decent paying job. No wonder that 50% of the people don't pay income taxes (federal) as their pay keeps going down and down.

It is interesting that the top 20% now earn 50% of the income but I suppose if you break it down, the top 1% or (top .1%) earn much of that. Don't have the tables to look at right now.


WASHINGTON (AP) — The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record as young adults and children in particular struggled to stay afloat in the recession.
Related

The top-earning 20 percent of Americans — those making more than $100,000 each year — received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released census figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.

A different measure, the international Gini index, found U.S. income inequality at its highest level since the Census Bureau began tracking household income in 1967. The U.S. also has the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations.

At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, census data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.

"Income inequality is rising, and if we took into account tax data, it would be even more," said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in poverty. "More than other countries, we have a very unequal income distribution where compensation goes to the top in a winner-takes-all economy."

Lower-skilled adults ages 18 to 34 had the largest jumps in poverty last year as employers kept or hired older workers for the dwindling jobs available, Smeeding said. The declining economic fortunes have caused many unemployed young Americans to double-up in housing with parents, friends and loved ones, with potential problems for the labor market if they don't get needed training for future jobs, he said.

Three states — New York, Connecticut and Texas — and the District of Columbia had the largest gaps in rich and poor, disparities that exceeded the national average. Similar income gaps were evident in large cities such as New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Boston and Atlanta, home to both highly paid financial and high-tech jobs as well as clusters of poorer immigrant and minority residents.

On the other end of the scale, Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Hawaii had the smallest income gaps.

Rea Hederman Jr., a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, agreed that census data show families of all income levels had tepid earnings in 2009, with poorer Americans taking a larger hit. "It's certainly going to take a while for people to recover," he said.

The findings are part of a broad array of U.S. census data being released this month that highlight the far-reaching impact of the recent economic meltdown. The effects have ranged from near-historic declines in U.S. mobility and birth rates to delayed marriage and the first drop in the number of illegal immigrants in two decades.

The census figures also come amid heated political debate in the run-up to the Nov. 2 elections over whether Congress should extend expiring Bush-era tax cuts. President Barack Obama wants to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and joint filers making less than $250,000; Republicans are pushing for tax cuts for everyone, including wealthy Americans.

The 2009 census tabulations, which are based on pre-tax income and exclude capital gains, are adjusted for household size where data are available. Prior analyses of after-tax income made by the wealthiest 1 percent compared to middle- and low-income Americans have also pointed to a widening inequality gap, but only reflect U.S. data as of 2007.

Among the 2009 findings:

—The poorest poor are at record highs. The share of Americans below half the poverty line — $10,977 for a family of four — rose from 5.7 percent in 2008 to 6.3 percent. It was the highest level since the government began tracking that group in 1975.

—The poverty gap between young and old has doubled since 2000, due partly to the strength of Social Security in helping buoy Americans 65 and over. Child poverty is now 21 percent compared with 9 percent for older Americans. In 2000, when child poverty was at 16 percent, elderly poverty stood at 10 percent.

—Safety nets are helping fill health gaps. The percentage of children covered by government-sponsored health insurance such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program jumped to 37 percent, or 27.6 million, from 24 percent in 2000. That helped offset steady losses in employer-sponsored insurance.

The 2009 poverty level was set at $21,954 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income. It excludes noncash aid such as food stamps.

Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted the effects of expanded government programs in cushioning the impact of skyrocketing unemployment. For example, the Census Bureau estimates that 3.6 million people would have been lifted above the poverty line if food stamps were counted — a number that would have reduced the 2009 poverty rate from the official 14.3 percent to 13.2 percent.

Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor, said while the U.S. has developed policies to combat poverty, it has trouble addressing ever-widening income inequality — even with a growing federal deficit and previous warnings by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan about soaring executive pay.

An Associated Press-GfK Poll this month found that by 54 percent to 44 percent, most Americans support raising taxes on the highest U.S. earners. Still, many congressional Democrats have expressed wariness about provoking the 44 percent minority so close to Election Day.

"We're pretty good about not talking about income inequality," Danziger said
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
This is what you get with low top marginal tax brackets.

No, this is what you get when pro athletes make 10's or 100's of million of dollars per year. (Football, basketball, golf, soccor, baseball etc.

This is what you get when performers (actors, muscians) make that kind of money.

Then throw in fund managers and top tier execs of large multinational corps.

High marginal rates prevent wealth accumulation, wealth accumulation is different from annual earnings. You should well know that.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
No, this is what you get when pro athletes make 10's or 100's of million of dollars per year. (Football, basketball. gold, soccor, baseball etc.

This is what you get when performers (actors, muscians) make that kind of money.

Then throw in fund managers and top tier execs of large multinational corps.

High marginal rates prevent wealth accumulation, wealth accumulation is different from annual earnings. You should well know that.

Fern

This is what you get when incomes, adjusted for inflation, are lower than they were 10 years ago for most of the population. Offshoring of jobs has accelerated income degradation for the middle and lower classes while accelerating the increase for those at the top.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Partly outsourcing, partly taxes too low at the top, partly rampant corruption in Washington.

Whatever part is your favorite, if you think that the US is getting worse you're statistically part of the many now. I am in that group. The country is not getting better over time for most people in it.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Americans live in a fantasy world regarding wealth distribution

http://www.slate.com/id/2268872/

100927_POL_wealthChart2.jpg
 

Cattlegod

Diamond Member
May 22, 2001
8,687
1
0
20% of people make 100K plus - that is 1 in 5 people. not bad.

5% make 180K plus - 1 in 20 people, that seems pretty good imho.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely in press.pdf

Look at the pie charts on page 11.

1st quintile's wealth: 84%
2nd quintile's wealth: 11%
3rd quintile's wealth: 4%
4th quintile's wealth: 0.2%
5th quintile's wealth: 0.1%

Think about that for a second. 40% of our population has only 0.3% of total wealth. Even the "middle class" has a measly 4%. Suddenly RedUnderUrBed's post about being a serfdom makes sense doesn't it?
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Think about that for a second. 40% of our population has only 0.3% of total wealth. Even the "middle class" has a measly 4%. Suddenly RedUnderUrBed's post about being a serfdom makes sense doesn't it?

People have no "wealth" by choice, not because some rich guy is keeping them down.

The middle class spends too much on material items and luxury goods like new cars and larger houses. The housing crisis was evidence of that.

People these days do not live below their means. They do not invest. They do not save. Most people just rely on their 401k or some pension as their "retirement/nestegg." You need to save, invest, and build wealth early and often, no matter how much you make. People are not doing that.

At my job, which could be considered a "middle class job," we have been begging people to work overtime, but hardly no one takes the offer. I have worked nearly 400 hours of overtime so far this year because the company needed me. I know some people have obligations, but many do not. Why are they not stepping up to the plate to get their bread?

Don't try to put them blame on someone else.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,884
4,436
136
People have no "wealth" by choice, not because some rich guy is keeping them down.

The middle class spends too much on material items and luxury goods like new cars and larger houses. The housing crisis was evidence of that.

People these days do not live below their means. They do not invest. They do not save. Most people just rely on their 401k or some pension as their "retirement/nestegg." You need to save, invest, and build wealth early and often, no matter how much you make. People are not doing that.

At my job, which could be considered a "middle class job," we have been begging people to work overtime, but hardly no one takes the offer. I have worked nearly 400 hours of overtime so far this year because the company needed me. I know some people have obligations, but many do not. Why are they not stepping up to the plate to get their bread?

Don't try to put them blame on someone else.

Because the tax rate on OT sucks? Because life is not meant to be a slave to your job?

Work to live, not live to work.
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
How in the world is raising taxes on the "wealthy" going to make the "poor" less poor. The rich hire experts to use all the loopholes available to them. Simplify the tax code.
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
How in the world is raising taxes on the "wealthy" going to make the "poor" less poor. The rich hire experts to use all the loopholes available to them. Simplify the tax code.

Taxing and regulating fixes everything. In the mind of a Democrat, anyway.

Never mind that those two things are a fair chunk of the reasons why we are where we are. A third of course is spending money that we don't have like there is no tomorrow, but I think that is the politician's favorite pastime.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Because the tax rate on OT sucks? Because life is not meant to be a slave to your job?

Work to live, not live to work.

My checks are usually, after taxes, still almost double what my co-workers make.

If that's how you want to live, I do not judge you.

However don't complain you have little or no wealth. Most businessmen dedicate their lives to their profession.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
At my job, which could be considered a "middle class job," we have been begging people to work overtime, but hardly no one takes the offer. I have worked nearly 400 hours of overtime so far this year because the company needed me. I know some people have obligations, but many do not. Why are they not stepping up to the plate to get their bread?
"Middle class jobs" are paid hourly?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Who gives a shit? Standard of living for everyone is the greatest in the history of mankind.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,653
205
106
People have no "wealth" by choice, not because some rich guy is keeping them down.

The middle class spends too much on material items and luxury goods like new cars and larger houses. The housing crisis was evidence of that.

People these days do not live below their means. They do not invest. They do not save. Most people just rely on their 401k or some pension as their "retirement/nestegg." You need to save, invest, and build wealth early and often, no matter how much you make. People are not doing that.

At my job, which could be considered a "middle class job," we have been begging people to work overtime, but hardly no one takes the offer. I have worked nearly 400 hours of overtime so far this year because the company needed me. I know some people have obligations, but many do not. Why are they not stepping up to the plate to get their bread?

Don't try to put them blame on someone else.


investment doenst create wealth, it merely syphons it from 1 location to another. investment is nothing more than a glorified loan. loans do not create wealth.
True wealth is only created when a product or service is actually delivered to a customer.
 
Last edited:

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
"Middle class jobs" are paid hourly?

For the most part, yes.

Let me guess, are you one of those people who makes $90k and then thinks you're middle class?

Middle class is $25k to $60k tops, IMO. Anything higher is upper middle class.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
investment doenst create wealth, it merely syphons it from 1 location to another. investment is nothing more than a glorified loan. loans do not create wealth.
True wealth is only created when a product or service is actually delivered to a customer.

Huh? I don't even know how to reply.

Warren Buffett doesn't produce anything, is what he has not wealth?

You need capital to create businesses (to produce things). If you want someone to loan you capital, you need to sell them an interest in your business.

The middle class can supply can make these loans, each of them a small bit at a time, to build businesses. This will give them a stake in product producing businesses.

I don't understand why you do not understand.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
This is what you get when incomes, adjusted for inflation, are lower than they were 10 years ago for most of the population. Offshoring of jobs has accelerated income degradation for the middle and lower classes while accelerating the increase for those at the top.

Income is irrelevant. The only relevant metric is buying power. Wage floors reduce buying power. Period.

Lower the wage floors and more companies can hire more people. Making $4/hr is a lot better than making $0/hr. It also means that domestic labor is more attractive. It also means that domestically produced EVERYTHINGS are less expensive, meaning lower prices for everyone. Meaning more BUYING POWER for those at the bottom and middle.

Stop focusing on income and start focusing on the factors that keep buying power low. Here's a tip: it starts with a high minimum wage.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
At my job, which could be considered a "middle class job," we have been begging people to work overtime, but hardly no one takes the offer. I have worked nearly 400 hours of overtime so far this year because the company needed me. I know some people have obligations, but many do not. Why are they not stepping up to the plate to get their bread?

So why don't they hire somebody? It's not like the unemployment rate isn't 9.5%.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
For the most part, yes.

Let me guess, are you one of those people who makes $90k and then thinks you're middle class?

Middle class is $25k to $60k tops, IMO. Anything higher is upper middle class.
Nope. For me, someone is typically "middle class" when they have a bachelors degree, working a desk job, 80 hours every two weeks (10-80 or 9-80), salaried with annual bonus, and are in supervisory positions or lower. Someone who is "upper middle class" is same as above, but have a graduate degree, and are in mid-manager to manager type positions. Are there exceptions to these rules? Sure.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Income is irrelevant. The only relevant metric is buying power. Wage floors reduce buying power. Period.

Lower the wage floors and more companies can hire more people. Making $4/hr is a lot better than making $0/hr. It also means that domestic labor is more attractive. It also means that domestically produced EVERYTHINGS are less expensive, meaning lower prices for everyone. Meaning more BUYING POWER for those at the bottom and middle.

Stop focusing on income and start focusing on the factors that keep buying power low. Here's a tip: it starts with a high minimum wage.

That's stupefyingly ass backwards. Earn less to have more buying power. Buying power to do what? pay the mortgage that's now more than your total take home? Utilities? Food? Insurance? Healthcare? Just because you now take home less money doesn't mean that stuff will ever be any cheaper.

Maybe America's financial elite will advocate that for themselves by accepting lower margins making stuff in this country. Probably not, huh?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
For the most part, yes.

Let me guess, are you one of those people who makes $90k and then thinks you're middle class?

Middle class is $25k to $60k tops, IMO. Anything higher is upper middle class.

Other than the fact that you're wrong and $90K is firmly middle class, even higher paid people often work hourly. I just took a gig as an independent consultant and you damn well bet I'm billing by the hour, and making a very healthy living doing it.

Salary is used by companies to make low level employees think they're special while making them work longer hours and actually driving down their hourly cost. Unless someone is upper management and making a fat salary, chances are they'd be better off hourly.
 
Last edited: