Historic High for WAGE earners

[Bern80]

RECESSION?

No doubt somethings going on. I live in MN and Macy's here just layed off 900 plus employees. I'd be curious what the national unemployment rate is and whether it is within acceptable range.

 

[jillian]

No doubt somethings going on. I live in MN and Macy's here just layed off 900 plus employees. I'd be curious what the national unemployment rate is and whether it is within acceptable range.

You won't know what the actual unemployment rate is because they remove "chronically unemployed" from the stats. Also, the unemployment rate doesn't address underemployment of people whose jobs have been outsourced, etc.

But, if you know "something's going on", Denny, why is it so difficult to acknowledge that there's a real issue with shrinking middle class and then look into why that might be the case.

 

[Bern80]

You won't know what the actual unemployment rate is because they remove "chronically unemployed" from the stats. Also, the unemployment rate doesn't address underemployment of people whose jobs have been outsourced, etc.

But, if you know "something's going on", Denny, why is it so difficult to acknowledge that there's a real issue with shrinking middle class and then look into why that might be the case.

I certainly acknowledge it's happening. The debate is why. The recession debate is quite different than the other debate we have been haveing about wealthy people and what constitutes the typical wealthy (see post 190 for more evidence that supports my original source). Your ascertion that any unemployment figure will not be accurate is nice excuse for saying I don't care what you show me, it's higher than that and unacceptable.

Interestingly, I believe the reasons for both are related to the same thing, which is again the evolving mentality of our society. We will tolerate less and less discomfort, meaning if anything goes mildly wrong we overreact to it and seek immediate correction instead of letting it correct itself.

 

[jillian]

I certainly acknowledge it's happening. The debate is why. The recession debate is quite different than the other debate we have been haveing about wealthy people and what constitutes the typical wealthy (see post 190 for more evidence that supports my original source).

Interestingly, I believe the reasons for both are related to the same thing, which is again the evolving mentality of our society. We will tolerate less and less discomfort, meaning if anything goes mildly wrong we overreact to it and seek immediate correction instead of letting it correct itself.

I disagree totally. It's not about mildly wrong. For example, if someone has been in the tech field his entire life and suddenly the US govt gives tax breaks to his boss for offshoring, his job is done. At say, age 40 or above, he's going to face age discrimination. Assuming that he isn't independently wealthy, he's going to have to find another job (at that age, unless you have something to fall back on, you can't take risk and set up your own shop). If the tech jobs are gone, he's going to have to a) invest in retraining... and again face age discrimination at entry level in a new field) or b) take a job beneath his skills, his education and his life position.

And THAT is how the middle class shrinks when your manufacturing and tech jobs head to other countries.

That's reality... not a fantasy about people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps or being to blame for their diminished circumstances.

As a final note, the shrinking middle class also has to do with the fact that upper management now makes, on average, I think 27 times the pay of the average worker. That used to be about 4 times or 7 times, I forget which and am at work so don't really have time to look it up. So, goods in a free market rise in price because the richest can pay them. The middle class can't keep up, thus, in real purchasing power, what would have been middle class previously becomes not so middle class.

One question, though, do you think it's ok for a CEO who failed miserably and got replaced to get a golden parachulte that pays millions of dollars a year while saying there's no money for employee cost of living increases? (This has happened, too... )

 

[Bern80]

I disagree totally. It's not about mildly wrong. For example, if someone has been in the tech field his entire life and suddenly the US govt gives tax breaks to his boss for offshoring, his job is done. At say, age 40 or above, he's going to face age discrimination. Assuming that he isn't independently wealthy, he's going to have to find another job (at that age, unless you have something to fall back on, you can't take risk and set up your own shop). If the tech jobs are gone, he's going to have to a) invest in retraining... and again face age discrimination at entry level in a new field) or b) take a job beneath his skills, his education and his life position.

And THAT is how the middle class shrinks when your manufacturing and tech jobs head to other countries.

That's reality... not a fantasy about people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps or being to blame for their diminished circumstances.

I was referring to changes in the over all economy. But to address your point first off do you honestly not see the unfounded assumptions you are makeing to get your argument to work? That has been a common theme in this thread, first was 'well that's just not representative of the wealthy' 3-4 sources to the contrary later people have conveniently brushed over that. If you want to make these assertions about how people are getting screwed and their all just poor victims, give some evidence and the rich are backstabbers that don't deserve what they have, you're gonna have to start providing some evidence at some point.

As a final note, the shrinking middle class also has to do with the fact that upper management now makes, on average, I think 27 times the pay of the average worker. That used to be about 4 times or 7 times, I forget which and am at work so don't really have time to look it up. So, goods in a free market rise in price because the richest can pay them. The middle class can't keep up, thus, in real purchasing power, what would have been middle class previously becomes not so middle class.

One possible explanation for that increase would be the skill set required for that function has also increased. That more time needs to be invested to gain the skills that employers find valuable. The skill set required to flip burgers probably hasn't changed too much.

One question, though, do you think it's ok for a CEO who failed miserably and got replaced to get a golden parachulte that pays millions of dollars a year while saying there's no money for employee cost of living increases? (This has happened, too... )

i have no issue with him keeping his retirement plan if thats what u mean.

 

[Shogun]

The number of 80-85% is widely regarded as the percentage of first-generation wealth among all with net worth's of $1,000,000+. I have seen that range used in every periodical, editorial, and university research article I have ever read on the topic.

As everything else in this thread, the leftists refuse to accept any fact that flies in the face of their perceptions of life in America. In order to fulfill their warped perception and try and defend their defensless position of unfairness, they need the vast majority of the wealthy to be silver-spooned, spoiled heirs and heiresses ala Paris Hilton. And they need the image of oppressed middle-class being slammed with the vast majority of the tax burden. Of course neither are even REMOTELY true. Facts are facts....

Then by all means...

post your evidence. I hear single source books make the best evidence.

 

[Bern80]

Then by all means...

post your evidence. I hear single source books make the best evidence.

Better than the no source at all that you have provided.

P.S. see post 190 for another source.

 

[Shogun]

Then provide evidence that it isn't. Again not hard. Show me numbers that x percent of millionaires have wealth within this range. X percent have wealth with in another range. At the very least I understand your gripe, but you have to somehow seperate the two things I'm saying, yes they focus on a specific group of the wealthy (assuming again that you accept a net worth as 1 million wealthy). They aren't manipulating anything at all and had you read the book you would understand that the one paragraph you quoted is not the be all and end all of the story. as far as that group not being typical, here is some more evidence you may be interesetd that suprise, surprise does NOT back your claim that the range cited is atypical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

of note would be the following

* Ultra-HNWIs (Ultra-HNWIs Account for 1.0% of All HNWIs) (more than $30 million, in 2006

I'm sure you can't understand that so I'll explain. HNWI stands for High Net Worth Income, Of all High Net Worth Incomes only 1% can be considered Ultra-High NWI, that is in excess of $30,000,000. So surprise, surprise you're the one full of shit....again.


You are one scandelous bastard when it comes to interpreting your posted sources, arent you?

Did you want to clarify which section of that wiki article you ninja'd your data from?

Multimillionaire

Another commonly used term is multimillionaire. As the term implies, multimillionaire applies to those individuals residing in households with a net worth or wealth of two-three million or more. Only a small minority of millionaire households are indeed multimillionaire households. The term also has a more prestigious connotation than millionaire.

Roughly 1.0% of high net worth individuals (HNWIs) can also correctly be identified as ultra-high-net-worth individuals (ultra-HNWIs), those who reside in households with a net worth or wealth of $30 million or more. There are approximately 95,000 ultra-HNWIs in the world with 61,600 or 64.8% residing in the United States and Europe.


so, would you like to explain how you leaped to:

I'm sure you can't understand that so I'll explain. HNWI stands for High Net Worth Income, Of all High Net Worth Incomes only 1% can be considered Ultra-High NWI, that is in excess of $30,000,000. So surprise, surprise you're the one full of shit....again.

while the data you are referencing makes no clarification between AMERICAN millionaires and WORLD millionaire?


Maybe you meant to use THIS wiki source instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class

Millionaires

Households with net worths of $1 million or more may be identified as members of the upper-most socio-economic demographics, depending on class model used. While most contemporary sociologists estimate that only 1% of households are members of the upper class, sociologist Leonard Beeghley states all households with a net worth of $1 million or more to be "rich." He divides "the rich" into two sub-groups: the rich and the super-rich. The simply rich constitute roughly 5% of U.S. households and their wealth is largely in the form of home equity. Other contemporary sociologists, such as Dennis Gilbert, argue that this group is largely part of the upper middle class, as its standard of living is largely derived from occupation-generated income and its affluence falls far short of that attained by the top percentile. Beeghley does acknowledge that most households with a net worth of $1 million, a group that incudes many middle class professionals, would largely identify as "upper middle class." The super-rich, according to Beeghley, are those able to live off their wealth. This demographic constitutes roughly 0.9% of American households. Beeghley's definition of the super-rich is congruent with the definition of upper class employed by most other sociologists. The top .01 percent of the population, with an annual income of $9.5 million or more, received 5% of the income of the United States in 2007. These 15,000 families have been characterized as the "richest of the rich".[14



or maybe you just wanted you clarify how your 80% gels with


HNWIs (more than $1 million, in 2006)
North America 3,200,000 0.62%


from your own source?


What math are you using to derive 80% from .62%?

oh, silly me.. a book.











How did you dissect the research methods? I told you they did a survey of the wealthy. I didnt' tell how it was done. Several pages are devoted to that topic. You read them and determined that their method was wrong?


Is your book the product of a survey or not? Why don't you elaborate on their testing methods since you are the expert. After all, you ARE the guy using a single source as if it were the ark of the covenant. I"ll wait.







I haven't. You don't know the books methods or how the research was done. The single paragraph you cited is what is. I know you like to think you're some intellectual wiz, but your debate skills leave a little to be desired.


Yea, I should probably take lessons from a guy trying to pass off manipulated stats as evidence. Indeed, lecture me some more on how to debate while insisting on the validity of a single source book that is about as impressive as Ann Coutler's next effort in political observation. After all, you certainly have proven trustworthy in your interpretations.


tenez, sucker.

 

[Shogun]

Better than the no source at all that you have provided.

P.S. see post 190 for another source.

post 208.

back atcha, pal.

 

[Bern80]

post 208.

back atcha, pal.

If I manipulate stats (which I don't), you completely butcher them. I don't know how long it will take me to point out the half dozen instances that show you can't read for shit, but I'll work on it.

Lets start with this: The first table says there are 3,200,000 HNWI in North America, the second says that of those 38,400 are in excess of $30,000,000. As a percent that group above $30 mil is 10.75%. I'll give ya 11%. Only 11% of millionaire were in excess of $30,000,000 in North America.

Of note of course, is that it is North America data, not US, data. However, your assertion was that the group of millionaires between 1 and 10 million is not representative of the wealthy in the US. Assuming you accept the numbers as valid I challenge you to attempt the math involved that would make your assertion accurate about the wealthy in the US.

 

[jillian]

I was referring to changes in the over all economy. But to address your point first off do you honestly not see the unfounded assumptions you are makeing to get your argument to work? That has been a common theme in this thread, first was 'well that's just not representative of the wealthy' 3-4 sources to the contrary later people have conveniently brushed over that. If you want to make these assertions about how people are getting screwed and their all just poor victims, give some evidence and the rich are backstabbers that don't deserve what they have, you're gonna have to start providing some evidence at some point.



One possible explanation for that increase would be the skill set required for that function has also increased. That more time needs to be invested to gain the skills that employers find valuable. The skill set required to flip burgers probably hasn't changed too much.



i have no issue with him keeping his retirement plan if thats what u mean.

All I'm going to say is that you're trying to make something excusable that really has no justification.

As for golden parachutes... that's not a retirment plan.

Actually, I've changed my mind. The premise set forth in this thread was yours. It's unproven. One book by someone with an agenda doesn't make for a valid source. Until you prove your premise, there isn't any need to rebut the unproven premise.

You acknowledge the veracity of the things I've pointed out, yet still blame the people who get displaced for not making some type of heroic effort to get back to where they were.

You know what, maybe you're right. Maybe people should be heroic. But most aren't..... most are just normal, hence middle class.

 

[Shogun]

All I'm going to say is that you're trying to make something excusable that really has no justification.

As for golden parachutes... that's not a retirment plan.

Actually, I've changed my mind. The premise set forth in this thread was yours. It's unproven. One book by someone with an agenda doesn't make for a valid source. Until you prove your premise, there isn't any need to rebut the unproven premise.

You acknowledge the veracity of the things I've pointed out, yet still blame the people who get displaced for not making some type of heroic effort to get back to where they were.

You know what, maybe you're right. Maybe people should be heroic. But most aren't..... most are just normal, hence middle class.

DOH!

 

[Bern80]

All I'm going to say is that you're trying to make something excusable that really has no justification.

What has no justification?

Actually, I've changed my mind. The premise set forth in this thread was yours. It's unproven. One book by someone with an agenda doesn't make for a valid source. Until you prove your premise, there isn't any need to rebut the unproven premise.

Actually there have been about 3 or 4 sources now between the two threads indicate my source is accurate. Look around. You'll find them. As to this BS that my source 'doesn't count', I have yet to see a valid reason why. Care tor provide one? Or perhaps your own that refutes it?

You acknowledge the veracity of the things I've pointed out, yet still blame the people who get displaced for not making some type of heroic effort to get back to where they were.

You know what, maybe you're right. Maybe people should be heroic. But most aren't..... most are just normal, hence middle class.

I expect people to make an effort and not depend on or blame others for what they have the ability to accomplish themselves. That really isn't that harsh.

 

[Shogun]

If a manipulate stats, you completely butcher them. I don't know how long it will take me to point out the half dozen instances that show you can't read for shit, but I'll work on it.

Lets start with this: The first table says there are 3,200,000 HNWI in North America, the second says that of those 38,400 are in excess of $30,000,000. As a percent that group above $30 mil is 10.75%. I'll give ya 11%.

Of note of course, is that it is North America data, not US, data. However, your assertion was that the group of millionaires between 1 and 10 million is not representative of the wealthy. Assuming you accept the numbers as valid I challenge you to attempt the math involved that would make your assertion accurate.

No, my entire point all along has been that YOUR definition from YOUR single source that relies on a cropped sample in order to reach 80% does not reflect what you are insisting that it does. Sure, people having 1-10 million are wealthy. AND, im sure, many of them made their own money. However, in relation to the premise of this thread AND your quickness to rely on one questionable source, that narrow bracket and it's 80% product is not representing the POPULATION of wealthy even if it helps your opinion that most of America's wealthy made their own money. Again, lecture me on my math some more while how smart people support their bullshit assertions with single source books and scandelous interpretations of stats.

 

[jillian]

What has no justification?

golden parachutes for ceo's who do such a bad job that they're asked to leave and then reward themselves by taking millions of dollars a year from their shareholders.... oh yeah, and then say the company can't afford employee health benefits or pensions.

Actually there have been about 3 or 4 sources now between the two threads indicate my source is accurate. Look around. You'll find them. As to this BS that my source 'doesn't count', I have yet to see a valid reason why. Care tor provide one? Or perhaps your own that refutes it?

Sorry, Denny. I saw the same questionable sources as Shogun. Feel free to believe them, but a book and a blog "poll" are not sources.

expect people to make an effort and not depend on or blame others for what they have the ability to accomplish themselves. That really isn't that harsh.

No. You expect people to have enough "fuck you" left in them after government and corporatist policies destroy their place in life that they can then pick themselves up at middle age and better and become "millionaires".

You haven't addressed the fact that it's REALLY bad for democracy for there to be no vital middle class. It's moving us closer to banana republic-hood.

 

[Bern80]

No, my entire point all along has been that YOUR definition from YOUR single source that relies on a cropped sample in order to reach 80%

I'm not sure your ever gonna get this. But I'll keep sayin' it. The 80% DOES NOT refer only to peole between 1-10 million net worth. It refers to EVERYONE over a net worth of 1 million. How including EVERYONE over 1 million is 'cropped' is beyond me.

does not reflect what you are insisting that it does. Sure, people having 1-10 million are wealthy. AND, im sure, many of them made their own money. However, in relation to the premise of this thread AND your quickness to rely on one questionable source, that narrow bracket and it's 80% product is not representing the POPULATION of wealthy even if it helps your opinion that most of America's wealthy made their own money. Again, lecture me on my math some more while how smart people support their bullshit assertions with single source books and scandelous interpretations of stats.

See above and prove it isn't. Also please provide evidence as to why the source should be considered questionable. Other than your opinion of course which doesn't count for shit.

 

[Bern80]

golden parachutes for ceo's who do such a bad job that they're asked to leave and then reward themselves by taking millions of dollars a year from their shareholders.... oh yeah, and then say the company can't afford employee health benefits or pensions.

Agreed. to think that is typical however is foolish.

Sorry, Denny. I saw the same questionable sources as Shogun. Feel free to believe them, but a book and a blog "poll" are not sources.

Actually one was from Forbes 400 list that was actually a little biased against the rich, and the other was a study conducted by a college professor. When I ask you to look...ummmmm....LOOK, before you come back and look like an idiot.

No. You expect people to have enough "fuck you" left in them after government and corporatist policies destroy their place in life that they can then pick themselves up at middle age and better and become "millionaires".

You haven't addressed the fact that it's REALLY bad for democracy for there to be no vital middle class. It's moving us closer to banana republic-hood.

I don't deny it's bad, I just don't think it's government's job to 'make' a middle class. Believe it or not most have the choice if the want to 'beholden to' government and corporate policies'.

 

[indago]

Bern80 wrote:

No doubt somethings going on. I live in MN and Macy's here just layed off 900 plus employees. I'd be curious what the national unemployment rate is and whether it is within acceptable range.

jillian wrote:

You won't know what the actual unemployment rate is because they remove "chronically unemployed" from the stats. Also, the unemployment rate doesn't address underemployment of people whose jobs have been outsourced, etc.

UNEMPLOYED 9%

 

[jillian]

Bern80 wrote:

jillian wrote:

UNEMPLOYED 9%

That's actually a lot more information than I thought would be made available.

Thank you.

 

[jillian]

Agreed. to think that is typical however is foolish.



Actually one was from Forbes 400 list that was actually a little biased against the rich, and the other was a study conducted by a college professor. When I ask you to look...ummmmm....LOOK, before you come back and look like an idiot.





I don't deny it's bad, I just don't think it's government's job to 'make' a middle class. Believe it or not most have the choice if the want to 'beholden to' government and corporate policies'.

And what if government and corporations are engaging in policies that they know worsen people's lives?