Lets talk about income inequality

[Brain357]

sweetheart, if you talk about WEALTH, do not post graphs about INCOME.

is it too much to ask?

a hint - those are two related but not identical things.

wealth distribution has not changed much during the last 40 years and is about the same as in 1922
wealth distribution GAP increases during dimocrap administrations and decreases during republican.
In fact the smallest it has been in 1972-1979 - during Nixon and Ford

If it hasn't changed much how are things going for the bottom 80 percent? Since 1983 they have gone from 18.7 to 11.1 percent. That's a big change.

There are fewer poor people, and that proves things are bad?

It means of all the wealth in the country the bottom 80% have 11.1 percent of it, when in 1983 they had 18.7 percent. So what do you mean fewer poor?

 

[Brain357]

sweetheart, if you talk about WEALTH, do not post graphs about INCOME.

is it too much to ask?

a hint - those are two related but not identical things.

wealth distribution has not changed much during the last 40 years and is about the same as in 1922
wealth distribution GAP increases during dimocrap administrations and decreases during republican.
In fact the smallest it has been in 1972-1979 - during Nixon and Ford

If it hasn't changed much how are things going for the bottom 80 percent? Since 1983 they have gone from 18.7 to 11.1 percent. That's a big change.

still does not change the figure that the hated 1% did not accumulate more wealth.

what it shows, though, that middle class EXPANDED - the next 19% increased wealth from 47.5% to 53.5% - and that is a very good thing.
because those upper 20% ( which millionaires and billionaires are only 1% and the rest are solid middle class) PAY ALL FEDERAL TAXES.
All of them. The bottom 80% do not pay ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

so the upper 20% who pay ALL THE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES pay much more than their "fair share"

It shows the bottom 80% have far less than they did. That's a pretty large percent of the population. I'd say there is more wealth inequality than there was in 1983.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

income inequality does not matter at the very end.what matters is the whole WEALTH inequality.

and the latter did not change much for the last 40 years.

as a country we did accumulate wealth - and the distribution of it's accumulation is the same as 40 years ago.
which just proves that income per se is not the main driver of wealth accommodation.

OK, you should stop now. You're starting to sound rather ignorant on the subject.....

How can income not matter in the end, when wealth is a measure of the abiltiy to procure resources and valuables?

Should they pay in peanut shells?

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.

 

[Brain357]

population in figures
top 1% - everybody who earns 343,927+ - those are NOT even millionaries, just upper middle class.

1%-5% 154,643 - 343,927 - those are not even UPPER MIDDLE class, just solid middle class

5%-10% 112,124 - 154,643 - those are your proverbial teachers, policemen and firefighters. and the whole host of others - are those RICH?

10%-25% 66,193- 112,124 - those are also RICH?


The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid Majority of US Tax Percentage

Where are you getting your numbers for teachers, policemen and firefighters? Most of what I see has them averaging in the $50-60k range.

 

[georgephillip]

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

"Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)."

While my personal example of the changes in wealth and income inequality over the past 40 years is only one among millions, in the mid-1970s a single minimum wage job paid me enough to cover the market rent on a brand new one-bedroom apartment in the East Bay Area with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.

Contrast that with today when a single minimum wage job barely covers any market based rental unit and skateboards or bicycles take the Chevy's place.

 

[Vox]

OK, you should stop now. You're starting to sound rather ignorant on the subject.....

How can income not matter in the end, when wealth is a measure of the abiltiy to procure resources and valuables?

Should they pay in peanut shells?

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.

 

[Vox]

population in figures
top 1% - everybody who earns 343,927+ - those are NOT even millionaries, just upper middle class.

1%-5% 154,643 - 343,927 - those are not even UPPER MIDDLE class, just solid middle class

5%-10% 112,124 - 154,643 - those are your proverbial teachers, policemen and firefighters. and the whole host of others - are those RICH?

10%-25% 66,193- 112,124 - those are also RICH?


The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid Majority of US Tax Percentage

Where are you getting your numbers for teachers, policemen and firefighters? Most of what I see has them averaging in the $50-60k range.

not where I live

those figures are very dependent on the area. I suspect that Detroit salaries are not going to be that good, but Scottsdale, NY could make your jaw drop.

 

[Vox]

While my personal example of the changes in wealth and income inequality over the past 40 years is only one among millions, in the mid-1970s a single minimum wage job paid me enough to cover the market rent on a brand new one-bedroom apartment in the East Bay Area with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.

Contrast that with today when a single minimum wage job barely covers any market based rental unit and skateboards or bicycles take the Chevy's place.

Baloney.
you won't be able to rent on an Upper East Side on a minimum wage salary, but that was not possible 40 years ago as well.
But I was able to live in a 3B/3bth apartment with all amenities and electronics and we had 2 cars ( though not luxury ones) for 4 people on a salary of 36-40K per year for 4 years while in training.
It is absolutely possible NOWADAYS as well, if one is not whining that he/she needs a new TV set in every room, a new iPhone every time it is on the market for every person in the family and is willing to drive a second-hand car.
While working on own market value


and the very same study provides the numbers which prove exactly the opposite - that there is no difference in the WEALTH distribution between top 1% and other 99% from now to 40 years ago.

and if one actually digs WHO is considered those hated 1% and finds that those are just upper middle classes with incomes starting in 350K+ and not what obama and his minions like to all the time call "millionaires and billionaires", plus that it is exactly those people, earning 66K+ who are thr main payers of the federal income taxes and whose income is being targeted to tax MORE for the "fair share" then you actually might start realizing that the whole class warfare game is ONE BIG LEFTARD LIE.

 

[Brain357]

population in figures
top 1% - everybody who earns 343,927+ - those are NOT even millionaries, just upper middle class.

1%-5% 154,643 - 343,927 - those are not even UPPER MIDDLE class, just solid middle class

5%-10% 112,124 - 154,643 - those are your proverbial teachers, policemen and firefighters. and the whole host of others - are those RICH?

10%-25% 66,193- 112,124 - those are also RICH?


The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid Majority of US Tax Percentage

Where are you getting your numbers for teachers, policemen and firefighters? Most of what I see has them averaging in the $50-60k range.

not where I live

those figures are very dependent on the area. I suspect that Detroit salaries are not going to be that good, but Scottsdale, NY could make your jaw drop.

Well we have to use average numbers for the country. So it looks like firefighters is actually $47,850.

Firefighters

 

[Vox]

Where are you getting your numbers for teachers, policemen and firefighters? Most of what I see has them averaging in the $50-60k range.

not where I live

those figures are very dependent on the area. I suspect that Detroit salaries are not going to be that good, but Scottsdale, NY could make your jaw drop.

Well we have to use average numbers for the country. So it looks like firefighters is actually $47,850.

Firefighters

No, we don't.

there is no such thing as "average family", "average salary", "average lifestyle".

that's baloney.

average for WHERE? or for WHOM? and so on.

 

[Brain357]

not where I live

those figures are very dependent on the area. I suspect that Detroit salaries are not going to be that good, but Scottsdale, NY could make your jaw drop.

Well we have to use average numbers for the country. So it looks like firefighters is actually $47,850.

Firefighters

No, we don't.

there is no such thing as "average family", "average salary", "average lifestyle".

that's baloney.

average for WHERE? or for WHOM? and so on.

Well if the average firefighter makes $47,850, then we can safely say most firefighters aren't in the top 20% of the US correct? You seemed to be saying they were. I think we can say most teachers and police also are not in the top 20% of the country. So when wealth for the bottom 80% is going down it effects these people. And you do seem to think wealth is the important factor.

 

[Vox]

firefighter Salary in New York, NY | Indeed.com
teacher Salary in New York | Indeed.com

( btw, teachers, firefighters and policemen are payed from our pockets - to their salaries SHOULD not be higher than the "average" income in the area )

you can play by areas and will find pretty amazing AVERAGE salaries for those folks.

heck, if a JANITOR can get a annual salary of 110K in Florida - then there is anything possible

Broward School District pays ex-custodian $108,000 a year to teach janitors - Sun Sentinel

 

[Vox]

Well we have to use average numbers for the country. So it looks like firefighters is actually $47,850.

Firefighters

No, we don't.

there is no such thing as "average family", "average salary", "average lifestyle".

that's baloney.

average for WHERE? or for WHOM? and so on.

Well if the average firefighter makes $47,850, then we can safely say most firefighters aren't in the top 20% of the US correct? You seemed to be saying they were. I think we can say most teachers and police also are not in the top 20% of the country. So when wealth for the bottom 80% is going down it effects these people. And you do seem to think wealth is the important factor.

there is no such thing as "average".

"average" WHERE? i

I just provided you with a link to a documented ( through a scandal) salary of a JANITOR which is 3 times higher than the "average" salary. Who did not get anything ILLEGALLY.

that became known because of a scandal, and those pop up everywhere in the country. the figures we are getting are the "average" BASIC salaries.
But anybody who ever worked close to those types of positions knows perfectly well that NOBODY in that profession lives just on a basic "average" salary. There are overtimes, benefits and other perks of the government union job. And "average" school bus driver gets up to 60K per year.

the yearly income of an "average" teacher, firefighter and policeman is in a 90-110K range in a decent suburbia, after they collect everything which is not included in the basic figures used for statistics purposes.

 

[Brain357]

firefighter Salary in New York, NY | Indeed.com
teacher Salary in New York | Indeed.com

( btw, teachers, firefighters and policemen are payed from our pockets - to their salaris SHOULD not be higher than the "average" income in the area )

you can play by areas and will find pretty amazing AVERAGE salaries for those folks.

heck, if a JANITOR can get a annual salary of 110K in Florida - then there is anything possible

Broward School District pays ex-custodian $108,000 a year to teach janitors - Sun Sentinel

Your links for NY firefighter and teachers still leaves them well out of the top 20%. So again isn't it bad then that their wealth as a percent of overall wealth is going down? It would seem there is now much less wealth equality for them.

 

[Brain357]

No, we don't.

there is no such thing as "average family", "average salary", "average lifestyle".

that's baloney.

average for WHERE? or for WHOM? and so on.

Well if the average firefighter makes $47,850, then we can safely say most firefighters aren't in the top 20% of the US correct? You seemed to be saying they were. I think we can say most teachers and police also are not in the top 20% of the country. So when wealth for the bottom 80% is going down it effects these people. And you do seem to think wealth is the important factor.

there is no such thing as "average".

"average" WHERE? i

I just provided you with a link to a documented ( through a scandal) salary of a JANITOR which is 3 times higher than the "average" salary. Who did not get anything ILLEGALLY.

that became known because of a scandal, and those pop up everywhere in the country. the figures we are getting are the "average" BASIC salaries.
But anybody who ever worked close to those types of positions knows perfectly well that NOBODY in that profession lives just on a basic "average" salary. There are overtimes, benefits and other perks of the government union job. And "average" school bus driver gets up to 60K per year.

the yearly income of an "average" teacher, firefighter and policeman is in a 90-110K range in a decent suburbia.

If it is that high then provide some link. So far everything has them at much lower.

 

[Vox]

firefighter Salary in New York, NY | Indeed.com
teacher Salary in New York | Indeed.com

( btw, teachers, firefighters and policemen are payed from our pockets - to their salaris SHOULD not be higher than the "average" income in the area )

you can play by areas and will find pretty amazing AVERAGE salaries for those folks.

heck, if a JANITOR can get a annual salary of 110K in Florida - then there is anything possible

Broward School District pays ex-custodian $108,000 a year to teach janitors - Sun Sentinel

Your links for NY firefighter and teachers still leaves them well out of the top 20%. So again isn't it bad then that their wealth as a percent of overall wealth is going down? It would seem there is now much less wealth equality for them.

those are the BASIC salaries.

That is not the "average" yearly income.

those are different figures.
police and firefighters get their main income NOT by the basic salary.
Teachers are a bit more complicated.

 

[Vox]

Well if the average firefighter makes $47,850, then we can safely say most firefighters aren't in the top 20% of the US correct? You seemed to be saying they were. I think we can say most teachers and police also are not in the top 20% of the country. So when wealth for the bottom 80% is going down it effects these people. And you do seem to think wealth is the important factor.

there is no such thing as "average".

"average" WHERE? i

I just provided you with a link to a documented ( through a scandal) salary of a JANITOR which is 3 times higher than the "average" salary. Who did not get anything ILLEGALLY.

that became known because of a scandal, and those pop up everywhere in the country. the figures we are getting are the "average" BASIC salaries.
But anybody who ever worked close to those types of positions knows perfectly well that NOBODY in that profession lives just on a basic "average" salary. There are overtimes, benefits and other perks of the government union job. And "average" school bus driver gets up to 60K per year.

the yearly income of an "average" teacher, firefighter and policeman is in a 90-110K range in a decent suburbia.

If it is that high then provide some link. So far everything has them at much lower.

you can not provide the link to overtime payments. those are not listed as basics.
same is pertinent for nurses, btw. "average" listed salary is in the mid-40K, but our nurses easily make 70-90K. They work.

and I have provided you the link which described how a janitor is making a 108K per year. The other can make 70K per year but since it did not make the pages of the newspaper, it is not publicized.

those are not scams. It is LEGAL.

and that is what is eating our taxes FAST. Plus pensions.

 

[Brain357]

there is no such thing as "average".

"average" WHERE? i

I just provided you with a link to a documented ( through a scandal) salary of a JANITOR which is 3 times higher than the "average" salary. Who did not get anything ILLEGALLY.

that became known because of a scandal, and those pop up everywhere in the country. the figures we are getting are the "average" BASIC salaries.
But anybody who ever worked close to those types of positions knows perfectly well that NOBODY in that profession lives just on a basic "average" salary. There are overtimes, benefits and other perks of the government union job. And "average" school bus driver gets up to 60K per year.

the yearly income of an "average" teacher, firefighter and policeman is in a 90-110K range in a decent suburbia.

If it is that high then provide some link. So far everything has them at much lower.

you can not provide the link to overtime payments. those are not listed as basics.
same is pertinent for nurses, btw. "average" listed salary is in the mid-40K, but our nurses easily make 70-90K. They work.

and I have provided you the link which described how a janitor is making a 108K per year. The other can make 70K per year but since it did not make the pages of the newspaper, it is not publicized.

those are not scams. It is LEGAL.

and that is what is eating our taxes FAST. Plus pensions.

So it sounds like most teachers, firefighters and police are not in the top 20%. But according to you maybe some small minority are?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If it hasn't changed much how are things going for the bottom 80 percent? Since 1983 they have gone from 18.7 to 11.1 percent. That's a big change.

There are fewer poor people, and that proves things are bad?

It means of all the wealth in the country the bottom 80% have 11.1 percent of it, when in 1983 they had 18.7 percent. So what do you mean fewer poor?

Sorry, I didn't check who I was replying to.

In 1982 the poverty rate was 15%, in 2000 it was 11%. The bottom 80% does not mean just the poor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If it hasn't changed much how are things going for the bottom 80 percent? Since 1983 they have gone from 18.7 to 11.1 percent. That's a big change.

still does not change the figure that the hated 1% did not accumulate more wealth.

what it shows, though, that middle class EXPANDED - the next 19% increased wealth from 47.5% to 53.5% - and that is a very good thing.
because those upper 20% ( which millionaires and billionaires are only 1% and the rest are solid middle class) PAY ALL FEDERAL TAXES.
All of them. The bottom 80% do not pay ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

so the upper 20% who pay ALL THE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES pay much more than their "fair share"

It shows the bottom 80% have far less than they did. That's a pretty large percent of the population. I'd say there is more wealth inequality than there was in 1983.

Sorry, they do not have "far less." What you are seeing there is the result of the real estate bubble bursting, not them suddenly getting poor. The bursting real estate bubble actually affected the rich people more than it did the poor.