Income inequality at an all-time high

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Sug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,991
Likes
55
Points
48
So someone turned off the spout?

As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring 1920s

Beginning in the economic expansion of the early 1990s, Saez argues, the economy began to favor the top tiers American earners, but much of the country missed was left behind. "The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007," Saes writes.

Despite a rising stock market, largely growing employment and a historic housing boom things were not nearly so rosy for the rest of U.S. workers. This trend, according to Saez, only accelerated during the George W. Bush's tenure as President:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html

trickledownimg1033.jpg
 
Blah blah blah. The corporations are screwing over the middle-class. The poor and middle-class are worse off now than they used to be. Blah blah blah.

William Robert Fogel, a Nobel prize-winning economic historian, argues [...] "In every measure that we have bearing on the standard of living...the gains of the lower classes have been far greater than those experienced by the population as a whole." [...]"

The increase in nominal GDP since 2000 amounts to over $4 trillion annually. If you assume that all that money went to the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households, that bonanza would come to a whopping $350,000 per household. Yet according to the Census Bureau, the top 10% of households has an average income of $200,000 or so. The implied bonanza is so absurd that the notion that only the rich have gained from the economic growth can be dismissed out of hand.

This year's real GDP of $14 trillion is three times that of 1970. So the absolute size of the slice received by the bottom 20% has increased to $476 billion from $181 billion. Allowing for population growth shows that the average income of people at the bottom of the income distribution has risen 36%.
 
Blah blah blah. The corporations are screwing over the middle-class. The poor and middle-class are worse off now than they used to be. Blah blah blah.

Exactly, you don't care.
 
Huffington Post = already dismissed by the conservatives.

This country is fucked regardless of who is in control. It's the natural progression of civilizations. It happened to the Greeks, the Romans, the Spanish, the British, and every other dominate society in Earth's history. Rot from within. It's the United State's turn to fall. I for one will welcome our future Chinese and Indian overlords.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Blah blah blah. The corporations are screwing over the middle-class. The poor and middle-class are worse off now than they used to be. Blah blah blah.
I don't think the study suggests either conclusion. Most explanations for rising income disparity point to inherent flaws in the system rather than malevolent forces tricking the population. And lower segments of society don't have to be worse off for wealth distribution to be more unequal.
 
Exactly, you don't care.

I don't care because you're looking at a meaningless metric. Just like you don't care that the ratio of zarhoos to thingy-majigs is going up.
 
I don't care because you're looking at a meaningless metric. Just like you don't care that the ratio of zarhoos to thingy-majigs is going up.
The increase in nominal GDP since 2000

Well since you are looking at a meaningful metric (SARCASM) then you might want to adjust for inflation. Oh and I mean REAL inflation not the CPI garbage that measures the cost of play stations. Also the top 10% isn't being discussed here it's the top 1% where all the growth occurred. Your good buddies at the top of the pyramid are vampiring from you TOO! The only reason things appeared to get better for the middle class and poor is because of the massive credit bubble that has now imploded.

But please defend the god given right for profit before everything else. When this country is but an empty husk the top 1% will remove their proboscis and move on to country's that have wealth left to steal. Countries like China and India. Hope you enjoy your new masters, oh and they won't look like you so you might have a harder time justifying THEIR dominance then the old wrinkly white guys you identify with.
 
Exactly, you don't care.

I think his point is that the percentage of the pie you receive doesn't matter as long as you're receiving more pie.

Allow me to ask a theoretical question. Say Harry takes home $50,000 annually and Sally takes home $400,000 annually (i.e., after taxes). Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for Harry if a new tax law were put in place that allowed him to take home $70,000 annually after taxes if that same bill meant that Sally took home $650,000 after taxes?
 
I don't think the study suggests either conclusion. Most explanations for rising income disparity point to inherent flaws in the system rather than malevolent forces tricking the population. And lower segments of society don't have to be worse off for wealth distribution to be more unequal.

Exactly. As we moved from an industrial economy to a technological economy and now to a knowledge economy, raw labor becomes less valuable. A global economy means that a job in a factory probably shouldn't pay more than a subsistence wage. The fact one used to be able to make a great living putting rivets into metal doesn't matter. In the value chain, assembly work is valued much less than it was previously.
 
Well since you are looking at a meaningful metric (SARCASM) then you might want to adjust for inflation. Oh and I mean REAL inflation not the CPI garbage that measures the cost of play stations. Also the top 10% isn't being discussed here it's the top 1% where all the growth occurred. Your good buddies at the top of the pyramid are vampiring from you TOO! The only reason things appeared to get better for the middle class and poor is because of the massive credit bubble that has now imploded.

But please defend the god given right for profit before everything else. When this country is but an empty husk the top 1% will remove their proboscis and move on to country's that have wealth left to steal. Countries like China and India. Hope you enjoy your new masters, oh and they won't look like you so you might have a harder time justifying THEIR dominance then the old wrinkly white guys you identify with.

Your good buddies at the top of the pyramid are vampiring from you TOO!

That tinfoil hat is making you hard to understand.

My "good buddies" at the top have provided a great job, with amazing pay, benefits, career path, flexibility, freedom and a great quality of life. That "vampiring" is so rough!


Again...

William Robert Fogel, a Nobel prize-winning economic historian, argues [...] "In every measure that we have bearing on the standard of living...the gains of the lower classes have been far greater than those experienced by the population as a whole." [...]"


If you want to whine and cry about income disparity, go for it. It doesn't mean much. The bottom line is that income disparity is much less important than standard of living or the disparity in standard of living.
 
Last edited:
I think his point is that the percentage of the pie you receive doesn't matter as long as you're receiving more pie.

Allow me to ask a theoretical question. Say Harry takes home $50,000 annually and Sally takes home $400,000 annually (i.e., after taxes). Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for Harry if a new tax law were put in place that allowed him to take home $70,000 annually after taxes if that same bill meant that Sally took home $650,000 after taxes?

So can we make the same argument for raising taxes on the wealthy? :devilwink:
 
I think the inflation argument is not a very compelling one.

When I was growing up, we were lucky to have a black and white TV, while today I'd guess most homes have more than one color TV and at least half have HDTV (rather expensive in current dollars). I use TV as an example, but I think it's true of absolutely everything in the economy except for higher education and health care. I mean washing machines, computers, etc. Look around your house and you'll see all kinds of items that our parents couldn't afford a few decades ago.

There was a tragic story on the news a few years ago about a young child who was hit by a stray bullet in the worst project in Chicago (Cabrini Green). The kid was playing his nintendo when it happened. Think about it - our poor have nintendo (or XBox or whatever these days).

I have no grudge against anyone making more than me, top 1% making the bulk of the money, or whatever. As long as there's plenty of money leftover for the poor to have nintendo, they're not hoarding everything at everyone else's expense.

Food for thought:
Inflation Adjusted Gasoline Prices
Year / Price
1969 / $2.06
1976 / $2.27
1981 / $3.20
1998 / $1.35
2008 / $3.22

June 2009: $2.59

The long term average inflation adjusted price of gas (1917-present) is $2.37.
 
That tinfoil hat is making you hard to understand.

My "good buddies" at the top have provided a great job, with amazing pay, benefits, career path, flexibility, freedom and a great quality of life. That "vampiring" is so rough!


Again...




If you want to whine and cry about income disparity, go for it. It doesn't mean much. The bottom line is that income disparity is much less important than standard of living or the disparity in standard of living.
I'm assuming that the "tin foil hat" is the one you are wearing. I'm not gonna even talk to someone who throws out that kind of rhetoric.
 
I'm assuming that the "tin foil hat" is the one you are wearing. I'm not gonna even talk to someone who throws out that kind of rhetoric.

I love it! You start throwing out garbage like:

Your good buddies at the top of the pyramid are vampiring from you TOO!

top 1% will remove their proboscis and move on to country's that have wealth left to steal.

Hope you enjoy your new masters, oh and they won't look like you so you might have a harder time justifying THEIR dominance then the old wrinkly white guys you identify with.

And then accuse others of throwing out "rhetoric". Classic! :biglaugh:
 
I love it! You start throwing out garbage like:







And then accuse others of throwing out "rhetoric". Classic! :biglaugh:
what part of what I said was a conspiracy theory? That is what you are insinuating when you make the tin foil hat reference. You are saying what I'm saying is wild lunacy and crazy talk. Throwing out the tin foil hat rhetoric is just a way to get people to stop thinking for themselves and shut down dialogue. I on the other hand am insinuating that you are blind to the behavior of the elite because they look like you. I'm also insinuating that your commentary is a bit naive.

By your standard of "better material existence" Hitler improved Germany. Or for that matter China now is on path to be better then we are because their standard of living has risen at a faster rate. Does freedom enter into your equation at all? How about happiness? If you're playing Nintendo but you get shot in the head is that really a better existence?

I'll admit I was over the top in what I said, but nothing I said was crazy talk and it all is quite accurate. The move to China has already begun by the top 1% as far as business goes so the wealth comment is pretty accurate.

Can I ask how old you are? I'm real curious as to what your profession is that you think is going to remain untouched by the massive wealth transference that is taking place in this country (Depression)? When you rob another's labor (and I'm talking about retirement plans of Millions of people) and take from them their life savings when you had guaranteed that they were safe (AAA rating on junk) what exactly do you call that behavior? I call it vampirism or theft, when I see people's life savings wiped out (I hear this story all the time at my job which involves talking to lots of folks). I'm using garish terms to be sure, but I'm curious how you would describe the behavior of Goldman Sachs and Bernard Madoff?

I'm glad your job is as plush as you make it sound. I hope that as the economy further degrades you don't find yourself wiped out and on the street. The people I hear that story from never thought it would happen to them, and that didn't protect them. You're commentary is pretty arrogant that since you're ok you think everything is hunky dory for everyone else. You might want to take off the blinders and see what is happening to real families across this country. Hard workers who put in 40+ hours every week until they were laid off after working at that job for 15 years. Story after story of hard working Americans who have been wiped out because of this financial mess.

I have no problem with people making an honest buck and am pro-free market. The top 1% in this country on the other hand are by and large working to make things a rigged game where only they benefit. If you can't see this happening every day then I would suggest you work on some compassion and do some reading from varied news sources. Things are getting pretty bad and are bound to get worse. Income inequality of the sort we have is invariably followed by oligarchy and banana republic status. The Middle Class in this country has been getting wiped out for about 30 years now. Now that the credit bubble is bursting this is becoming obvious to those with eyes to see.

So here is a fellow tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist who just happens to be the former head economist of the IMF.


http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice

Becoming a Banana Republic
In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (and only in emerging markets): South Korea (1997), Malaysia (1998), Russia and Argentina (time and again). In each of those cases, global investors, afraid that the country or its financial sector wouldn’t be able to pay off mountainous debt, suddenly stopped lending. And in each case, that fear became self-fulfilling, as banks that couldn’t roll over their debt did, in fact, become unable to pay. This is precisely what drove Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy on September 15, causing all sources of funding to the U.S. financial sector to dry up overnight. Just as in emerging-market crises, the weakness in the banking system has quickly rippled out into the rest of the economy, causing a severe economic contraction and hardship for millions of people.

But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.

Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better—in a “buck stops somewhere else” sort of way—on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership. And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for “safety and soundness” were fast asleep at the wheel.

But these various policies—lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership—had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial sector’s profits—such as Brooksley Born’s now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998—were ignored or swept aside.

Seriously man, pay attention these are real people getting hurt out there and you think it's cool that the top 1% have massively increased their wealth? At whose expense? It looks like a hell of a lot of people to me. So please take off your tin-foil hat because it's blocking out knowledge of the real world.
 
I think his point is that the percentage of the pie you receive doesn't matter as long as you're receiving more pie.

Allow me to ask a theoretical question. Say Harry takes home $50,000 annually and Sally takes home $400,000 annually (i.e., after taxes). Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for Harry if a new tax law were put in place that allowed him to take home $70,000 annually after taxes if that same bill meant that Sally took home $650,000 after taxes?

I'd say that would be a bad thing for Harry (and Sally) because the government would collapse.

barfo
 
I think his point is that the percentage of the pie you receive doesn't matter as long as you're receiving more pie.

Allow me to ask a theoretical question. Say Harry takes home $50,000 annually and Sally takes home $400,000 annually (i.e., after taxes). Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for Harry if a new tax law were put in place that allowed him to take home $70,000 annually after taxes if that same bill meant that Sally took home $650,000 after taxes?

NO!
I WANT MORE TAXES!!! (serious)

I would rather make only 30k a year than 40k a year after taxes, if that means someone else only gets 300k instead of 400k because of taxes.

also, just responding to the thread: I'm pretty sure "all-time high" would be the middle ages or any time of monarchies... Unless you meant all time high in the us...
 
I think his point is that the percentage of the pie you receive doesn't matter as long as you're receiving more pie.

Allow me to ask a theoretical question. Say Harry takes home $50,000 annually and Sally takes home $400,000 annually (i.e., after taxes). Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for Harry if a new tax law were put in place that allowed him to take home $70,000 annually after taxes if that same bill meant that Sally took home $650,000 after taxes?

I would be happy for both of them. The problem is that the government spends more money than it would take in if Harry brought home 10 grand a year and Sally took home 50 grand a year. Even if their gross figures were what you started with.

I would rather we decide as a nation what crap we are going to pay for and then figure out how to tax everyone equally to make it happen. If the poorer of us figured out that we couldn't pay our rent AND Directv bill then a large corporation might get less of our income.

If the large corporations figure out a way to get us suckers to buy their stuff, that is our problem. Nobody forces unemployed or people who live under the poverty line to get a damn cell phone. We give the money to them because we want to.

Maybe that is our problem too, we spend our disposable income (if we have it) on something that will NEVER pay us back. That money is gone.

The thing is, many of us have been happy to ride along and get the newest gadgets to make our current lives fun. We didn't care if we don't save for our retirement. Now people are finding that they won't get to work full time up until that point and the shit is hitting the fan.

I go on car websites a TON and it never ends with people who have to sell all their stuff because they are out of work for two months. Maybe they shouldn't have bought an extra 10 thousand dollar car as a play toy if they don't have a nest egg????????

PS...then they get pissed that they can't sell it for what they paid for it because everyone else is in the same boat!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top