35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality

[Uncensored2008]

Every modern industrialized nation has more income mobility due to public education.

Yeah, bullshit.

BTW I have seen research that suggests that Canada, Norway, and Finland all have more income mobility than the US.

Sure you have.

 

[Bombur]

Every modern industrialized nation has more income mobility due to public education.

Yeah, bullshit.

BTW I have seen research that suggests that Canada, Norway, and Finland all have more income mobility than the US.

Sure you have.

It is BS that public education helps mobility? LOL

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...-sawhill/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

I really don't care that much about mobility between nations. As I said before it is a very complicated issue that is impacted by a lot more than a stupid "socialism v capitalism" debate.

It is also just one of the issues I have with growing income inequality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is BS that public education helps mobility? LOL

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...-sawhill/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

Way to move those goal posts sploogy.

You claimed that "Every modern industrialized nation has more income mobility due to public education." First off, the USA has public education, so your claim is stupid on the face of it.

As for income mobility, you are simply making shit up - hoping no one noticed.

{Contrary to the popular perception, we find that percentile rank-based measures of intergenerational mobility have remained extremely stable for the 1971-1993 birth cohorts. For example, the probability that a child reaches the top fifth of the income distribution given parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution is 8.4% for children born in 1971, compared with 9.0% for those born in 1986. Children born to the highest-income families in 1984 were 74.5 percentage points more likely to attend college than those from the lowest-income families. The corresponding gap for children born in 1993 is 69.2 percentage points, suggesting that if anything mobility may have increased slightly in recent cohorts}

Equality of Opportunity

 

[Bombur]

It is BS that public education helps mobility? LOL

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...-sawhill/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

Way to move those goal posts sploogy.

You claimed that "Every modern industrialized nation has more income mobility due to public education." First off, the USA has public education, so your claim is stupid on the face of it.

As for income mobility, you are simply making shit up - hoping no one noticed.

{Contrary to the popular perception, we find that percentile rank-based measures of intergenerational mobility have remained extremely stable for the 1971-1993 birth cohorts. For example, the probability that a child reaches the top fifth of the income distribution given parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution is 8.4% for children born in 1971, compared with 9.0% for those born in 1986. Children born to the highest-income families in 1984 were 74.5 percentage points more likely to attend college than those from the lowest-income families. The corresponding gap for children born in 1993 is 69.2 percentage points, suggesting that if anything mobility may have increased slightly in recent cohorts}

Equality of Opportunity

I referenced public education as an example of what the government can do to help income mobility.

The US has done a lot to address income mobility to try and make it stay stable including large investments in health care, education, and other government programs.

Like I said before, income mobility is an extremely complicated topic and not a major part of my argument. You made a claim about other nations and how they compared to the US. I found a study that suggested they do better than the US. You then move the goal posts away from comparing nations to how income mobility may have changed over the years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I referenced public education as an example of what the government can do to help income mobility.

The US has done a lot to address income mobility to try and make it stay stable including large investments in health care, education, and other government programs.

Like I said before, income mobility is an extremely complicated topic and not a major part of my argument. You made a claim about other nations and how they compared to the US. I found a study that suggested they do better than the US. You then move the goal posts away from comparing nations to how income mobility may have changed over the years.

The fact is that income mobility remains robust in the United States - despite the propaganda you attempted to spread. Fully one third of Americans move from one income strata to another in their lifetimes. One out of three children born to poverty will move to the middle class. One out of three children born to wealth will drop to the middle class. And of course Obama drove a third of the middle class into poverty in the 09' -13' era of error.

The democratic party is waging war against the middle class, which if successful will end the ability of people to climb the ladder - essentially Obama is pulling the ladder up and putting boot to the face of those usurpers trying to rise above their station - such is the nature of leftism.

However, before Obama and theoretically after the national nightmare ends, the ability of Americans to guide their own fate through hard work and intelligence remains as strong as ever.

 

[Dragonlady]

Every modern industrialized nation has more income mobility due to public education.

Yeah, bullshit.

BTW I have seen research that suggests that Canada, Norway, and Finland all have more income mobility than the US.

Sure you have.

Canada currently has the fastest growing middle class in the world.

You rejected the facts given to you without doing even a cursory Google search which would have confirmed what you were told.

What is unmitigated bullshit is that the U.S. Is the greatest nation that ever was. You dominated the world for 50 years. The Romans dominated all of Europe, The Middle East and North Africa for CENTURIES.

By every measure, the U.S. is in decline due to the Republican policies of the past 30 years. Up to Reagan's election the U.S. was the land of opportunity. Since 1980, both public and private debt has ballooned, the education system has been starved for funds, infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate, while the wealth of the nation has been used to build the most formidable war machine the world has ever seen.

To the rest of the world, the Republican Party is the party of war mongering fools. Their behaviour since Obama was elected would have seen the party punished at the polls the way Canadians treated the Progressive Conservatives in the early 1990's - going from a healthy majority to 4 seats and losing Party status. That you idiots continue to vote for this pack of fools says that they are the party of the greedy, the malicious and the stupid.

 

[Bombur]

I referenced public education as an example of what the government can do to help income mobility.

The US has done a lot to address income mobility to try and make it stay stable including large investments in health care, education, and other government programs.

Like I said before, income mobility is an extremely complicated topic and not a major part of my argument. You made a claim about other nations and how they compared to the US. I found a study that suggested they do better than the US. You then move the goal posts away from comparing nations to how income mobility may have changed over the years.

The fact is that income mobility remains robust in the United States - despite the propaganda you attempted to spread. Fully one third of Americans move from one income strata to another in their lifetimes. One out of three children born to poverty will move to the middle class. One out of three children born to wealth will drop to the middle class. And of course Obama drove a third of the middle class into poverty in the 09' -13' era of error.

The democratic party is waging war against the middle class, which if successful will end the ability of people to climb the ladder - essentially Obama is pulling the ladder up and putting boot to the face of those usurpers trying to rise above their station - such is the nature of leftism.

However, before Obama and theoretically after the national nightmare ends, the ability of Americans to guide their own fate through hard work and intelligence remains as strong as ever.

Now you are just creating more straw men, ignoring facts, and coming to erroneous conclusions. Even your own argument is not even logically consistent and it certainly isn't based on the facts.

Income mobility in the US remains OK when comparing the US to other like nations. My point about how income inequality relates to income mobility is simple math based on the power of compound interest. There are many other factors within an economy that can impact income mobility, like I have said multiple times now. Nothing you said counters my points. There are a lot of things the US government can and does do to combat the impact income inequality has on income mobility.

The US middle class is struggling but reducing that complicated issue into simply blaming Obama is sophomoric partisan BS. I have no problem blaming Obama where he is to blame. I also have no problem blaming Congress or past Presidents from either side of the aisle.

You can continue your simplistic illogical rants if you must but so far you have struggled to create logically sound arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Hoover was a republican who stuck to capitalism and laissez-fair to solve the Great Depression; the People got Hoover-villed.

only the right doesn't have a clue or a Cause.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I think they should do a new national treasure movie. This time they should try to find obamas birth certificate. It would be a two parter. The first part would be deciphering through obamas lies. The other would be actually traveling to his home country of Kenya to find it. Let the adventure begin!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now you are just creating more straw men, ignoring facts, and coming to erroneous conclusions. Even your own argument is not even logically consistent and it certainly isn't based on the facts.

Income mobility in the US remains OK when comparing the US to other like nations. My point about how income inequality relates to income mobility is simple math based on the power of compound interest. There are many other factors within an economy that can impact income mobility, like I have said multiple times now. Nothing you said counters my points. There are a lot of things the US government can and does do to combat the impact income inequality has on income mobility.

The US middle class is struggling but reducing that complicated issue into simply blaming Obama is sophomoric partisan BS. I have no problem blaming Obama where he is to blame. I also have no problem blaming Congress or past Presidents from either side of the aisle.

You can continue your simplistic illogical rants if you must but so far you have struggled to create logically sound arguments.

Where we differ is that I offer peer-reviewed studies from leading economists from publicans such as the Quarterly Journal of Economics to support my positions. You offer your interpretation of what someone interpreted the latest Krugman rant to mean over on ThinkProgress.

Income mobility, the transition of populations from one quintile to another was robust through 2009. In 2014 we again saw movement. IF you actually grasped the subject, you would have latched on the recession as the reason rather than Obama (in fact it is both.) Income equality and income mobility are vastly different things. Typically, people are poorer when young, accumulating wealth as they grow older. While the bottom quintile has about the same number of people year to year, who those people are changes constantly. This is a stark difference to nations such as Mexico, where one born in the bottom quintile is likely to die there. In America, people move to different economic stratas.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hoover was a republican who stuck to capitalism and laissez-fair to solve the Great Depression; the People got Hoover-villed.

only the right doesn't have a clue or a Cause.

Once again demonstrating that you have zero education, zero knowledge, and zero intellect....

Go back to your bong and your XBox.

 

[danielpalos]

Hoover was a republican who stuck to capitalism and laissez-fair to solve the Great Depression; the People got Hoover-villed.

only the right doesn't have a clue or a Cause.

Once again demonstrating that you have zero education, zero knowledge, and zero intellect....

Go back to your bong and your XBox.

How do you think I reach my conclusions; by working hard? I have been playing Caesar III and have started using that form of command economics to build infrastructure and trade, and accumulate massive budget surpluses without any taxes; and, with Only the initial capital funding to begin with.

Homelessness was present before the Great Depression, and hobos and tramps were common sights before 1929. Most large cities built municipal lodging houses for them, but the depression exponentially increased demand. The homeless clustered in shanty towns close to free soup kitchens. These settlements were often formed on empty land and generally consisted of tents and small shacks. Authorities did not officially recognize these Hoovervilles and occasionally removed the occupants for trespassing on private lands, but they were frequently tolerated or ignored out of necessity. The New Deal enacted special relief programs aimed at the homeless under the Federal Transient Service (FTS), which operated from 1933–35.[3]--Source: Hooverville - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Homelessness was present before the Great Depression, and hobos and tramps were common sights before 1929. Most large cities built municipal lodging houses for them, but the depression exponentially increased demand. The homeless clustered in shanty towns close to free soup kitchens. These settlements were often formed on empty land and generally consisted of tents and small shacks. Authorities did not officially recognize these Hoovervilles and occasionally removed the occupants for trespassing on private lands, but they were frequently tolerated or ignored out of necessity. The New Deal enacted special relief programs aimed at the homeless under the Federal Transient Service (FTS), which operated from 1933–35.[3]--Source: Hooverville - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
How do you think I reach my conclusions; by working hard?

You reach your conclusions by smoking huge amounts of dope, and reading leftist hate sites.

I have been playing Caesar III and have started using that form of command economics to build infrastructure and accumulate massive budget surpluses without any taxes; and, with Only the initial capital funding to begin with.

Well there you go; XBox is the source of your understanding of economics....

 

[danielpalos]

Still nothing but diversion; mr. hardworker for everything but a good argument.?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Still nothing but diversion; mr. hardworker for everything but a good argument.?

Sober up. post something approaching rational, and I'll do my best to address it seriously.

 

[bedowin62]

i'm still mystified why left-wingers feel their moronic straw man arguments, non sequiturs, and red herrings are deserved of serious responses

 

[evince]

your the idiots who deny sience

 

[Uncensored2008]

i'm still mystified why left-wingers feel their moronic straw man arguments, non sequiturs, and red herrings are deserved of serious responses

There is a huge difference between Bombur, who at least attempts to offer a logical argument, and this clown Palos, who I suspect is a troll.

 

[bedowin62]

your the idiots who deny sience

Please get your GED before posting again.

 

[Bombur]

Now you are just creating more straw men, ignoring facts, and coming to erroneous conclusions. Even your own argument is not even logically consistent and it certainly isn't based on the facts.

Income mobility in the US remains OK when comparing the US to other like nations. My point about how income inequality relates to income mobility is simple math based on the power of compound interest. There are many other factors within an economy that can impact income mobility, like I have said multiple times now. Nothing you said counters my points. There are a lot of things the US government can and does do to combat the impact income inequality has on income mobility.

The US middle class is struggling but reducing that complicated issue into simply blaming Obama is sophomoric partisan BS. I have no problem blaming Obama where he is to blame. I also have no problem blaming Congress or past Presidents from either side of the aisle.

You can continue your simplistic illogical rants if you must but so far you have struggled to create logically sound arguments.

Where we differ is that I offer peer-reviewed studies from leading economists from publicans such as the Quarterly Journal of Economics to support my positions. You offer your interpretation of what someone interpreted the latest Krugman rant to mean over on ThinkProgress.

Income mobility, the transition of populations from one quintile to another was robust through 2009. In 2014 we again saw movement. IF you actually grasped the subject, you would have latched on the recession as the reason rather than Obama (in fact it is both.) Income equality and income mobility are vastly different things. Typically, people are poorer when young, accumulating wealth as they grow older. While the bottom quintile has about the same number of people year to year, who those people are changes constantly. This is a stark difference to nations such as Mexico, where one born in the bottom quintile is likely to die there. In America, people move to different economic stratas.

The study you provided doesn't counter my arguments at all. Just because you link a study in your post that doesn't mean it supports your argument or counters the person you are arguing against. You still have to logically apply the information in the study to the argument. This is where you fell on your face with straw men and just general confusion about what the study meant and what my argument was.

I never referenced Krugman or ThinkProgress.

Income mobility doesn't have much to do with the fact that people make more money as they get older. Income mobility has to do with how your income relates to the income of your parents.

Measuring income mobility over small periods of time like you did doesn't make much sense because income mobility is mostly concerned about long term income potential as opposed to yearly income.

Once again, income mobility was a topic that was brought up by someone else. I think it is a distraction from the real issue which is growing income inequality. There are a lot of ways to address income mobility without necessarily addressing the degree of income inequality. That said, income mobility is a much bigger issue in a nation with massive income inequalities and income inequalities does make income mobility more difficult.