Lets talk about income inequality

[Quantum Windbag]

Well Vox said wealth was important and I've clearly showed wealth inequality is growing with income inequality.

When did I say that I support government meddling? Much of the meddling has gotten us here.

Funny, I didn't see you clearly showing anything.

Clearly you ignore statistics. I posted several showing the bottom 80% have a much smaller percent of total wealth. I've also post a link showing the bottom 93% are losing wealth.

Understanding statistics is not ignoring them. I actually looked at the analysis you linked to and found some very interesting things.

The first, and most critical, is that it only covers two years.

During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data.

Anyone with a brain, which does exclude you, knows that isolating two years is not the way to argue that the trend is proving you right.

Another thing I saw was that all of the gain for the top 7%, as I pointed out earlier, was concentrated in the financial markets.

Please, feel free to pretend you understand statistics, just don't expect me to pretend the same thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

18.7 to 11.1 is far less. Pretty simple math really.

Seven cents is far less money?

7.6 percent is a lot when starting at only 18.7. Gone from almost 20 to close to 10.

OK, 8 cents.

 

[Brain357]

Seven cents is far less money?

7.6 percent is a lot when starting at only 18.7. Gone from almost 20 to close to 10.

OK, 8 cents.

Yes you have a strong understanding of statistics. haha

 

[Brain357]

Funny, I didn't see you clearly showing anything.

Clearly you ignore statistics. I posted several showing the bottom 80% have a much smaller percent of total wealth. I've also post a link showing the bottom 93% are losing wealth.

Understanding statistics is not ignoring them. I actually looked at the analysis you linked to and found some very interesting things.

The first, and most critical, is that it only covers two years.

During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data.

Anyone with a brain, which does exclude you, knows that isolating two years is not the way to argue that the trend is proving you right.

Another thing I saw was that all of the gain for the top 7% was, as I pointed out earlier, is concentrated in the financial markets.

Please, feel free to pretend you understand statistics, just don't expect me to pretend the same thing.

Your interesting things don't change that the wealth of 93% is going down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

u

There is no agreement on what is a middle class, but there is on where doesn't exist

Yet, despite your agreement with non existent people about a non existent phenomenon, you can't show me a single example.

By the way, did you notice that I actually proved that Third World Country does not mean a country without a middle class after you told me to look it up?

Nations' economies are not static. A third world nation that has an economy that feeds an emerging middle class is no longer a true third world nation. Emerging classes defy your static and rigid pseudointellectual ramblings and reasoning

Show me an example of any country, at any point in time, of a country without a middle class. You can even use the Soviet Union if you want. Before you do, I want to point out that the reason the USSR fell was not because it did not have a middle class, it fell because it couldn't figure out how to give the middle class the goods they wanted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even one of CNN's Angry old white drunkards gets tbis one: What will the United States be like if there is no middle class? ? Cafferty File - CNN.com Blogs

That isn't an example of a country, is it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

All this amounts to is: The rich are too rich. They prosper too much, and no, they didn't build that.

Gosh liberals, you have zero case.

 

[Londoner]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

The real problem w/ income inequality is consumer demand. Every worker is also a consumer.

During the postwar years, because of a compact between labor and capital, American workers received a greater proportion of the gains from economic growth. There was also a whole policy infrastructure that kept their cost of living low, including subsidized education, cheap health care and retirement benefits.

There were also strictly enforced anti-trust regulations which prevented corporations from merging and forming monopolies (which monopolies would allow corporations to hold Americans hostage to say ever rising health care costs. And when Americans are being bankrupted by artificially inflated health costs, they cannot consume at the needed levels for job growth)

During the postwar years, we had a system that worked. By tying the wages and overall compensation of average workers to economic gains, you created MORE consumption. But business grew tired of the postwar arrangement that created the most solvent middle class in world history... so they poured money into Washington with the goal of lowering wages (by globalizing production) and removing the policies that protected consumers from monopolies and removing all the subsidies that gave the middle class an affordable cost of living, upward mobility and the needed financial security to consume at unprecedented levels. The Reagan Revolution removed all these middle class supports in order to make room for tax cuts to the wealthy.

A problem emerged. The health of the American economy was tied to high levels of middle class consumption. By dismantling the wage, benefit and policy structure that created a solvent middle class, there would be less money for consumption. [You get this right] When the coffee shop worker can't buy shoes, the shoe business has to lay off workers. And, as a result, the laid-off shoe workers can't go to the movie theater, which means the movie theater has to lay off workers and so on. It's called a deflationary cycle of spiraling lay-offs, and it's one of the main reasons workers need to be able to buy the stuff they make. This is why Henry Ford paid his workers enough to buy cars. If you have a consumption economy and your distribution system vastly underpays workers, than the system will not be able to sell its goods.

So the Reagan Revolution faced a problem as it transitioned the middle class into labor rates more in line with Asian and 3rd world norms. How could it sustain consumption in the face of lowered wages and reduced benefits? Answer: credit. Therefore, starting in 1980 American families went on an unprecedented borrowing binge. For the next 30 years hard working families would amass ever greater amounts of debt to consume and keep pace. This stop-gap measure actually worked well in the beginning. The economy, awash in easy credit, grew at a steady pace. But nobody paid attention to the elephant in the room: massive consumer debt.

As you would expect, the crisis of borrowing came to a head when credit markets froze in 2008. Americans were not only tapped out, but they were also unable to borrow at the needed levels to consume and sustain economic growth. Currently, the consumer is too indebted to meet the needed demand requirements to prevent layoffs. Put simply, corporations don't have enough consumers to justify adding jobs. We spent 30 years lowering the wages, benefits, and policy support to the middle class, and twenty years aggressively expanding credit markets to make up for stagnant and disappearing wages. . . and we're out of credit gimmicks to fix the problem.

Meaning: credit cards and fancy mortgages and home equity loans and "no money down" eventually ran their course - and now we're out of solvent consumers.

When the middle class has spending money (because of higher wages, stronger benefits and affordable education/health care), the capitalist has an incentive to innovate and add jobs. I'll say it again: the capitalist has an incentive to add jobs when there are MORE consumers with high purchasing power. However, when consumer spending shrinks because of decades of disappearing jobs and stagnant wages, the capitalist must layoff workers.

Reaganomics was the perfect solution when the problem was inflation. However, when the problem is deflation, Reaganomics is poison.

Welcome to it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

The real problem w/ income inequality is consumer demand. Every worker is also a consumer.

During the postwar years, because of a compact between labor and capital, American workers received a greater proportion of the gains from economic growth. There was also a whole policy infrastructure that kept their cost of living low, including subsidized education, cheap health care and retirement benefits.

There were also strictly enforced anti-trust regulations which prevented corporations from merging and forming monopolies (which monopolies would allow corporations to hold Americans hostage to say ever rising health care costs. And when Americans are being bankrupted by artificially inflated health costs, they cannot consume at the needed levels for job growth)

During the postwar years, we had a system that worked. By tying the wages and overall compensation of average workers to economic gains, you created MORE consumption. But business grew tired of the postwar arrangement that created the most solvent middle class in world history... so they poured money into Washington with the goal of lowering wages (by globalizing production) and removing the policies that protected consumers from monopolies and removing all the subsidies that gave the middle class an affordable cost of living, upward mobility and the needed financial security to consume at unprecedented levels. The Reagan Revolution removed all these middle class supports in order to make room for tax cuts to the wealthy.

A problem emerged. The health of the American economy was tied to high levels of middle class consumption. By dismantling the wage, benefit and policy structure that created a solvent middle class, there would be less money for consumption. [You get this right] When the coffee shop worker can't buy shoes, the shoe business has to lay off workers. And, as a result, the laid-off shoe workers can't go to the movie theater, which means the movie theater has to lay off workers and so on. It's called a deflationary cycle of spiraling lay-offs, and it's one of the main reasons workers need to be able to buy the stuff they make. This is why Henry Ford paid his workers enough to buy cars. If you have a consumption economy and your distribution system vastly underpays workers, than the system will not be able to sell its goods.

So the Reagan Revolution faced a problem as it transitioned the middle class into labor rates more in line with Asian and 3rd world norms. How could it sustain consumption in the face of lowered wages and reduced benefits? Answer: credit. Therefore, starting in 1980 American families went on an unprecedented borrowing binge. For the next 30 years hard working families would amass ever greater amounts of debt to consume and keep pace. This stop-gap measure actually worked well in the beginning. The economy, awash in easy credit, grew at a steady pace. But nobody paid attention to the elephant in the room: massive consumer debt.

As you would expect, the crisis of borrowing came to a head when credit markets froze in 2008. Americans were not only tapped out, but they were also unable to borrow at the needed levels to consume and sustain economic growth. Currently, the consumer is too indebted to meet the needed demand requirements to prevent layoffs. Put simply, corporations don't have enough consumers to justify adding jobs. We spent 30 years lowering the wages, benefits, and policy support to the middle class, and twenty years aggressively expanding credit markets to make up for stagnant and disappearing wages. . . and we're out of credit gimmicks to fix the problem.

Meaning: credit cards and fancy mortgages and home equity loans and "no money down" eventually runs its course - and you run out of solvent consumers.

On the other hand, when the middle class has spending money (because of higher wages, stronger benefits and affordable education/health care), the capitalist has an incentive to innovate and add jobs. I'll say it again: the capitalist has an incentive to add jobs when there are MORE consumers with high purchasing power. However, when consumer spending shrinks because of decades of disappearing jobs and stagnant wages, the capitalist must layoff workers.

Reaganomics was the perfect solution when the problem was inflation. However, when the problem is deflation, Reaganomics is poison.

Welcome to it.

Good thing we aren't on the brink of deflation then.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

The real problem w/ income inequality is consumer demand. Every worker is also a consumer.

During the postwar years, because of a compact between labor and capital, American workers received a greater proportion of the gains from economic growth. There was also a whole policy infrastructure that kept their cost of living low, including subsidized education, cheap health care and retirement benefits.

There were also strictly enforced anti-trust regulations which prevented corporations from merging and forming monopolies (which monopolies would allow corporations to hold Americans hostage to say ever rising health care costs. And when Americans are being bankrupted by artificially inflated health costs, they cannot consume at the needed levels for job growth)

During the postwar years, we had a system that worked. By tying the wages and overall compensation of average workers to economic gains, you created MORE consumption. But business grew tired of the postwar arrangement that created the most solvent middle class in world history... so they poured money into Washington with the goal of lowering wages (by globalizing production) and removing the policies that protected consumers from monopolies and removing all the subsidies that gave the middle class an affordable cost of living, upward mobility and the needed financial security to consume at unprecedented levels. The Reagan Revolution removed all these middle class supports in order to make room for tax cuts to the wealthy.

A problem emerged. The health of the American economy was tied to high levels of middle class consumption. By dismantling the wage, benefit and policy structure that created a solvent middle class, there would be less money for consumption. [You get this right] When the coffee shop worker can't buy shoes, the shoe business has to lay off workers. And, as a result, the laid-off shoe workers can't go to the movie theater, which means the movie theater has to lay off workers and so on. It's called a deflationary cycle of spiraling lay-offs, and it's one of the main reasons workers need to be able to buy the stuff they make. This is why Henry Ford paid his workers enough to buy cars. If you have a consumption economy and your distribution system vastly underpays workers, than the system will not be able to sell its goods.

So the Reagan Revolution faced a problem as it transitioned the middle class into labor rates more in line with Asian and 3rd world norms. How could it sustain consumption in the face of lowered wages and reduced benefits? Answer: credit. Therefore, starting in 1980 American families went on an unprecedented borrowing binge. For the next 30 years hard working families would amass ever greater amounts of debt to consume and keep pace. This stop-gap measure actually worked well in the beginning. The economy, awash in easy credit, grew at a steady pace. But nobody paid attention to the elephant in the room: massive consumer debt.

As you would expect, the crisis of borrowing came to a head when credit markets froze in 2008. Americans were not only tapped out, but they were also unable to borrow at the needed levels to consume and sustain economic growth. Currently, the consumer is too indebted to meet the needed demand requirements to prevent layoffs. Put simply, corporations don't have enough consumers to justify adding jobs. We spent 30 years lowering the wages, benefits, and policy support to the middle class, and twenty years aggressively expanding credit markets to make up for stagnant and disappearing wages. . . and we're out of credit gimmicks to fix the problem.

Meaning: credit cards and fancy mortgages and home equity loans and "no money down" eventually runs its course - and you run out of solvent consumers.

On the other hand, when the middle class has spending money (because of higher wages, stronger benefits and affordable education/health care), the capitalist has an incentive to innovate and add jobs. I'll say it again: the capitalist has an incentive to add jobs when there are MORE consumers with high purchasing power. However, when consumer spending shrinks because of decades of disappearing jobs and stagnant wages, the capitalist must layoff workers.

Reaganomics was the perfect solution when the problem was inflation. However, when the problem is deflation, Reaganomics is poison.

Welcome to it.

Good thing we aren't on the brink of deflation then.

Wow. How deflating. Londoner typed all of that up, QWB responds with a devastating ten word rebuttal. Owned.

 

[Erand7899]

Its not a problem because there are always rich and poor. But when the gap is too large those societies crumble. By crumble I don't mean like a delicious cookie either

Income inequality has never caused any society to crumble. Societies crumble because envious asses stir up unrest among those on the lower tier of the society, and other asses in political power attempt to quiet the unrest with largess from the treasury. Sound familiar?

Societies crumble because of jealousy? Any other intangibles? How about because of sadness?

How about ignorance and the inability to properly associate cause and effect, manifesting itself in halfassed attempts to deflect arguments that you cannot otherwise dismiss.

 

[Erand7899]

because your income changes from the year to the year and what matters when, let's say, you retire and want to enjoy life - what you have as a net worth.

It is the wealth ( which are your accumulated assets minus your personal debts) which is the base for that life being enjoyable or not.

That does not mean that income growth should not be better and faster - but for its stalling one can be thankful for the exponential expansion of the government overreach and it's strangling power on income growth.

Nevertheless, despite increased screaming from the left about growing inequalityt between top 1% and other 99% - IT IS NOT TRUE - as the figures reflecting accumulated wealth distribution do not support.
In other words - the amount of poor is not getting bigger and the top 1% does not get to have all the wealth for themselves - distribution of wealth did not change for the last 40 years.

so we are not even near any potential revolutionary situation, despite fearmongering from the left.

p.s. when I first encountered this proportion I was surprised myself, because I expected to see a growing gap as well. Given the propaganda one hears daily.

My income hasnt out paced inflation in over 5 years. You're making no sense at all. I stated earlier that inflation is one hidden tax that you claimed wasnt an issue on overall wealth. Then you claimed income doesnt matter in the end.

Now youre saying that not only does it matter, but that its the reason wealth distribution hasnt changed in years.

if you want to play stubborn and insist on not reading why the net worth is what actually matters, I am not going to plead for you to give it a try and click a link. You want to look like our leftard moonbats - you are free to do so.

income inequality does not matter for the end wealth inequality. At least it did not matter for the last 40 years.

No, net worth is not what actually matters, cash flow is what determines how well one lives. Cash flow may be dependent upon net worth, or it may be dependent upon other factors such as pensions, rents, etc. A prudent person lives within the income they receive, regardless of how much net worth they have.

 

[Brain357]

All this amounts to is: The rich are too rich. They prosper too much, and no, they didn't build that.

Gosh liberals, you have zero case.

Actually it is slowing the whole economy. Haven't you noticed?
Record High Income Inequality Threatens U.S. Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even one of CNN's Angry old white drunkards gets tbis one: What will the United States be like if there is no middle class? ? Cafferty File - CNN.com Blogs

That isn't an example of a country, is it?

Okay dufus.

It's an obvious to even the brain dead example of a rant on thr USA becoming a nation without a middle class, but according to you...

...everyone in the world who speaks of nations without a middle class is in error in doing so.

Need a definitional example of insanity or stupidity?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Look at nations with no middle class.

Why do conservative free marketeers as well as liberal economists propose and support schemes like the negative income tax?

Life isn't fair and what human culture and society have done since a few generations removed from swinging in the trees is mitigate this fact. For in the long run,, the benefit of the many benefits the few. You can take that to the bank

Look at nations without a middle class? How? There isn't one anywhere on this planet, and has never been one. It would be easier for me to look at nations that have warp drive.

Precious.

 

[georgephillip]

Even one of CNN's Angry old white drunkards gets tbis one: What will the United States be like if there is no middle class? ? Cafferty File - CNN.com Blogs

Your link:

"A USA Today analysis of Census data finds there are 150 areas nationwide where the share of income going to the middle class shrank from 2006 to 2010.

"Middle class households generally means those making between $21,000 and $100,000 a year. It includes the three-fifths of households sandwiched between the rich and the poor.

"Experts say this trend dates back to the 1970s. Back then, 53% of the nation's income went to the middle class. In 2010, it was about 46%.

"The recent recession has only made things worse as employers cut jobs and hours, furloughed workers and froze salaries. All the while the value of family assets - like homes and investments - went down.

"The scariest part is there doesn't seem to be any relief in sight."

Another scary part: the knowledge that "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat for your congressional representatives will not alter what's happening here.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A nation with only a ruling elite and susbsistence farmers...or one with a hand to mouth existence, has no middle class. Even one with a small bureaucracy ciuldn't be said to have a middle class as a class must have a certain volume of the population in order to statisticalky and significantly register in a meaningful way

 

[ClosedCaption]

Income inequality has never caused any society to crumble. Societies crumble because envious asses stir up unrest among those on the lower tier of the society, and other asses in political power attempt to quiet the unrest with largess from the treasury. Sound familiar?

Societies crumble because of jealousy? Any other intangibles? How about because of sadness?

How about ignorance and the inability to properly associate cause and effect, manifesting itself in halfassed attempts to deflect arguments that you cannot otherwise dismiss.

Sure lets add in those since we are blaming things that cant be measured.

No deflection here bub, that's exactly the argument being made. Blaming Jealousy. And your counter is what? You have a jealousometer that measures jealousy that proves me wrong?

 

[Erand7899]

Societies crumble because of jealousy? Any other intangibles? How about because of sadness?

How about ignorance and the inability to properly associate cause and effect, manifesting itself in halfassed attempts to deflect arguments that you cannot otherwise dismiss.

Sure lets add in those since we are blaming things that cant be measured.

No deflection here bub, that's exactly the argument being made. Blaming Jealousy. And your counter is what? You have a jealousometer that measures jealousy that proves me wrong?

Many things cannot be measured, but we don't ignore them or dismiss them because they cannot be measured. However, that is not even the issue. You claimed that income inequality causes nations to crumble. Provide some real evidence that that has occurred without rabble rousers stirring up discontent amongst the lower classes? Or, without weak kneed politicians attempting to buy off the rabble with government handouts?

 

[Erand7899]

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

"The income share of the top 10 percent has risen to a record high; but you're completely missing the picture if you think of the top 10 percent as a homogeneous group.

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

BTW, Rockefeller, the current minimum wage where I live is $8 per hour or roughly $1200 per month which is almost exactly the median rental price for a 0 bedroom 1 bath studio apartment.

When will the right stop kissing every very rich ass that waddles by?

Idiot, the 10% starts at 150K per year. Are you retarded to name 150k per year "very rich"?

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

A tiny elite of 400 Americans controls more wealth than the poorest 150 million Americans.
Does that conform to your understanding of democracy?

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

Yes, that does conform to a true understanding of democracy. Political freedom is not measured in dollars and cents.

In an economic upturn, the super rich earn more of the generated wealth because they have much more of their assets invested in the economy. If you own 100 shares of a stock, and that stock goes up one dollar, you have made $100, less costs. If you own a million shares, you make a million dollars, less costs. If you don't have anything invested in the market, then you make nothing. That is how the system works. But, you can also spend your time bitching about those who are making money. That is the liberal/socialist way.