Redistribution of wealth: New figures.

[PLC1]

Forty years ago, I was in graduate school and working full time. Since there was no tuition at the state university, no student loans were needed.

Now, students graduate with tens of thousands of dollars of debt, and no jobs.

Just over forty years ago, I bought my first house. It cost $13,500, for a three bedroom on about a third of an acre. My salary at that time was an even $10,000. Gas cost 25.9 cents a gallon.

Update those figures for inflation, and you have the house now costing $135,000, gas at $2.59, and a teacher's salary at $100,000.

Yeah, right.

Fifty years ago, I was in undergrad school. I worked summers in a sawmill, saving roughly $1,000 during the summer. That was enough to pay for tuition, books, and living expenses until about half way through the second semester. My parents subsidized me after that.

Now, where is the summer job that allows a college student to earn enough for tuition, books, and 3/4 of living expenses by working summers?

I graduated broke but out of debt. Today's college students graduate tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

Oh, yes, and there were jobs to be had back in '64.

And the poor and middle class are better off than they used to be?

 

[BigRob]

Forty years ago, I was in graduate school and working full time. Since there was no tuition at the state university, no student loans were needed.

Now, students graduate with tens of thousands of dollars of debt, and no jobs.

Just over forty years ago, I bought my first house. It cost $13,500, for a three bedroom on about a third of an acre. My salary at that time was an even $10,000. Gas cost 25.9 cents a gallon.

Update those figures for inflation, and you have the house now costing $135,000, gas at $2.59, and a teacher's salary at $100,000.

Yeah, right.

I am not sure where you got your inflation figures, but they are not accurate.

Forty years ago, it is 1971 -- your items translated into 2011 dollars are as follows:
$13,500 = $75,629
$10,000 = $56,021
$0.259 = $1.46

Now, obviously we have a ton of other factors at play here, but discount all of those and there are areas where these numbers make some sense. You can still find jobs that pay in that range, and depending on where you are located (same as is 1971, you can find a house for that)

Fifty years ago, I was in undergrad school. I worked summers in a sawmill, saving roughly $1,000 during the summer. That was enough to pay for tuition, books, and living expenses until about half way through the second semester. My parents subsidized me after that.

That amounts to roughly $7,500 today. To pull that down today over the summer, one would need to work roughly three months at around $11.50 an hour. That is doable.

Now, where is the summer job that allows a college student to earn enough for tuition, books, and 3/4 of living expenses by working summers?

I graduated broke but out of debt. Today's college students graduate tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

Oh, yes, and there were jobs to be had back in '64.

And the poor and middle class are better off than they used to be?

The point is that poor and middle class are able to get more for their money. They can have multiple TV's, a place to live, a car, eat out at times, etc etc.

 

[Openmind]

Again...you simply take your side as gospel and discount all other positions.

And you think you are doing anything different? At least I back up my "gospel" with facts!

There is a study out of the Adam Smith Institute in London that address this very issue. You can find it here.

From a Washington Times article about such study:
Income inequality can easily increase in societies in which everyone, including the very poorest individuals, is becoming better off. In the United States, as well as in Europe, indicators of income inequality have grown during the past 30 years. Yet this rise is just an artifact of the inappropriate use of income as a measure of welfare. In real terms, the poorest members of Western societies are better off than they were 30 years ago.

That is soooo impressive! the poorest members of Western societies are better off by 20%. . .the wealthiest members of Western societies are better off by 275%. . .so the inequality continues to increase . . . and unless something is done, there will be no end to that increase. . .in 10 years, at the rate we're going, and especially if the GOP gets its way, we may see an increase for the poorest quintile of 5%, and for the wealthiest quintile of 350%. . .and ten years later. . .you get my drift.

Much of that has to do with the rise of cheap imports from countries such as China and new forms of large-scale retailing, epitomized by Wal-Mart and Sears, which have given the low-income groups access to goods that previously were enjoyed only by the rich. In terms of the actual material conditions of living, developed countries appear to be more equal than ever before.

That's a bunch of BS! the inequality is GROWING, unless you want to stick to the point that, if poor people are able to purchase a tv, they have nothing to complain about! When will you recognize that the poor need help, that income inequality is bad for everyone!. . .when the poor ALL live under a bridge?

Data reveal that inequality in subjective life satisfaction is not on the rise, either. Bill Gates‘ net worth might be higher by a factor of 5 million compared to that of the average American family. However, in spite of his wealth, he certainly is not 5 million times happier than a typical American.

Oh. . .you're right, we should really feel sorry for the wealthy who "can't get no . . ." happiness, in spite of their millions!
Big Gates, as Warren Buffett have understood that "wealth" doesn't bring happiness, so they are giving a large part of their wealth away. . .not passing it on to their kids!

So. . .I guess you're saying that, since wealth doesn't bring "happiness," the wealthy are doing a favor to the poor by taking the "burden" of wealth off them?
Let me tell you something. . .although happiness cannot be measure in dollars, it sure makes it easier to have the dollars to buy insurance, or buy food, or keep a roof over your head, so that your children can be happy with a full stomach, a bed to sleep in, and the assurance that if their mom or dad get sick, they'll go to a doctor who will help them get better, instead of wait until the tumor has spread and the cancer has generalized!

No...you are missing the point. Can you accept that on paper income inequality can rise, and yet all people can be vastly better off?

NO, just look at those people in the street? Do you think they are better off than 20 years ago? do you think that the 20% increase in "wealth" compare to the 100% increase in insurance cost, college tuition, cost of housing, etc. .? Sure they are able to afford a TV. ..electronic gadgets is one of the ONLY thing that got cheaper in the last 20 years!

So this is simply about "income growth"...by your own words....so as I said originally, it seems you are upset that the share of growth is slowing for certain groups...however the does not negate that there is growth, and they are better off.

Are you really calling a 20% growth in 20 years a real, effective growth???
And if the poor can be "so much better off" with a 20% growth in 20 years, why is it soooo important for the wealthy to keep their 275% growth? Why not setting up policies that would help the poor's "income growth" from 20% every 20 years, to 50% every 20 years. . .policies that would also slow the wealthy's "income growth from 275% to 100%. . .there would still be growth. . .as you so "clerverly" noted, but at least it wouldn't be obscene!

And as I said, I am pretty sure I never said that to begin with...however you keep dodging my question of "you always talk about a 'temporary' tax increase, when is it that you see this ending?"

When the economy is back on track, unemployment is down to "normal" unemployment (which is anywhere between 4.5 and 5.5% unemployment) AND when the deficit is under control.

Why. . .does it matter that much? The Bush tax cuts were "suppose" to end in 2010, but, obviously, those were tax cuts targetted for the wealthy. . .so they were FORCED to continue by the GOP blackmail!

The middle class is indeed worrying about the spending...they just want someone else to pay the bill to bail them out. How about a little "shared sacrfice"?

Don't you think that the cuts in spending are a huge sacrifice for the poor and the middle class? I would say they carry the BIGGEST share of the sacrifice!
Don't tell me that you think it is easier for a person making $40,000 to give up the school lunch for their kids, or to pay more for their medicare, than it is for a person making $1.5 million to pay an additional $2,500 in tax!

Was there a tax increase proposed on the Middle Class that I was unaware of?

This is so fake! Do you think the medicare cuts, the cuts in teacher salary, the cuts in police jobs, the cuts in Medicaid programs are NOTHING?

All people have burdens in their lives. Do you think "rich" people have no burden? Does a CEO who is responsible for 10,000 employees jobs carry no burden?

You mean. . .the CEO that decides to lay off 3,000 employees so that his stock price goes up. . .the one who makes (even when his profits go down) a compensation totalling over $100 millions a year?
Yes, I'm certain that it is a huge issue to have to decide whether they'll be able to take the 4 weeks vacation to take that cruise around the world, or in which mansion they will host Thanksgiving dinner for their 40 closest "business associates," and which business associate should be included in the invitation, so as to reep the most profit from those "connections!"

How about the nurse who has REAL responsibility of 3 people EVERY NIGHT in the intensive care unit?
How about the police chief who has the responsibility to keep his crew on the dangerous inner city street, and see his crew cut down by 20%?

Yes..the poor "lose" by having their incomes grow.

You really need to take a few days to experience REAL life outside your "golden box!" your insensitivity is . . . sad! If their REAL income grew so that they could actually experience some benefit from it. . .for exemple, if THEIR income grew by 275% and the wealthy income grew by 20%. . . .Do you think the . . .wealthy would "lose" by having their incomes grow???

Greed is good...you can attempt to change that all you want, but there is no system devised that is better. Milton Friedman said something along the lines of if you look where people are the worst off, it is in places where they attempt to control market forces and not let greed work.

Ambition is good. . .runaway greed is evil. Milton Friedman is NOT appreciated by everyone, in fact lots of economists totally disagree with his principles. And. . .he is dead, so he hasn't experienced the consequences of his policies, as we all are today! Now, Alan Greenspan himself had to recognize that he was wrong in "trusting the market!"
Europe is not worst off than we are . . .I know there is a thread that very happily anounced "Europe demise," but at the very least. . . it was very premature!

 

[Openmind]

Double Post - removed

 

[GenSeneca]

Link for the highlighted data?

It's from the data YOU posted in the OP...

 

[Openmind]

It's from the data YOU posted in the OP...

Then why don't you read the info again. . .you obviously misunderstood it!

 

[Openmind]

I am not sure where you got your inflation figures, but they are not accurate.

Forty years ago, it is 1971 -- your items translated into 2011 dollars are as follows:
$13,500 = $75,629
$10,000 = $56,021
$0.259 = $1.46

Wrong again. You are only looking at "generalized inflation," based on that "basket" of goods.

Look at this chart that shows HOUSING inflation:


Now, obviously we have a ton of other factors at play here, but discount all of those and there are areas where these numbers make some sense. You can still find jobs that pay in that range, and depending on where you are located (same as is 1971, you can find a house for that)



That amounts to roughly $7,500 today. To pull that down today over the summer, one would need to work roughly three months at around $11.50 an hour. That is doable.



The point is that poor and middle class are able to get more for their money. They can have multiple TV's, a place to live, a car, eat out at times, etc etc.[/QUOTE]

 

[Openmind]

I am not sure where you got your inflation figures, but they are not accurate.

Forty years ago, it is 1971 -- your items translated into 2011 dollars are as follows:
$13,500 = $75,629
$10,000 = $56,021
$0.259 = $1.46

Wrong again, you are only looking at an inflation measure that is measured by a "basket" of goods, not the REAL inflation that varies in different areas. for example, look at this chart that demonstrates housing inflation:

 

[dogtowner]

Then why don't you read the info again. . .you obviously misunderstood it!

snipped from the OP verbatim (near the top)

\•For others in the 20 percent of the population with the highest income (those in the 81st through 99th percentiles), average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent over that period, much faster than it did for the remaining 80 percent of the population, but not nearly as fast as for the top 1 percent.
•For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale (the 21st through 80th percentiles), the growth in average real after-tax household income was just under 40 percent.
•For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income, average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in 1979.

seems pretty clear to me Open

 

[BigRob]

And you think you are doing anything different? At least I back up my "gospel" with facts!

What exactly are all the numbers you spend the rest of the post dismissing? Fantasy?

That is soooo impressive! the poorest members of Western societies are better off by 20%. . .the wealthiest members of Western societies are better off by 275%. . .so the inequality continues to increase . . . and unless something is done, there will be no end to that increase. . .in 10 years, at the rate we're going, and especially if the GOP gets its way, we may see an increase for the poorest quintile of 5%, and for the wealthiest quintile of 350%. . .and ten years later. . .you get my drift.

So by your own admission, the poor are in fact better off.

That's a bunch of BS! the inequality is GROWING, unless you want to stick to the point that, if poor people are able to purchase a tv, they have nothing to complain about! When will you recognize that the poor need help, that income inequality is bad for everyone!. . .when the poor ALL live under a bridge?

What is an acceptable income inequality in your mind, and how did you arrive at whatever figure you are going to give me?

Oh. . .you're right, we should really feel sorry for the wealthy who "can't get no . . ." happiness, in spite of their millions!

Perhaps you need to reread what was posted?

Big Gates, as Warren Buffett have understood that "wealth" doesn't bring happiness, so they are giving a large part of their wealth away. . .not passing it on to their kids!

Of course no one does that for tax purposes either.

So. . .I guess you're saying that, since wealth doesn't bring "happiness," the wealthy are doing a favor to the poor by taking the "burden" of wealth off them?

Perhaps if you misread my comments, take them to the extreme, and then go a little further you could conclude that I mean that.

Let me tell you something. . .although happiness cannot be measure in dollars, it sure makes it easier to have the dollars to buy insurance, or buy food, or keep a roof over your head, so that your children can be happy with a full stomach, a bed to sleep in, and the assurance that if their mom or dad get sick, they'll go to a doctor who will help them get better, instead of wait until the tumor has spread and the cancer has generalized!

Great...go earn it...don't think you are entitled to it at my expense.

NO, just look at those people in the street? Do you think they are better off than 20 years ago?

Are we making the leap here that "poor" suddenly means homeless and living on the street?

do you think that the 20% increase in "wealth" compare to the 100% increase in insurance cost, college tuition, cost of housing, etc. .? Sure they are able to afford a TV. ..electronic gadgets is one of the ONLY thing that got cheaper in the last 20 years!

Get off your rant here..."poor" people can easily quality for medicaid, CHIP, free clinincs etc. "Poor" people can easily qualify for all kinds of assistance with housing, and job placements.

If they don't take advantage of it, why should I feel bad about it?

Are you really calling a 20% growth in 20 years a real, effective growth???
And if the poor can be "so much better off" with a 20% growth in 20 years, why is it soooo important for the wealthy to keep their 275% growth? Why not setting up policies that would help the poor's "income growth" from 20% every 20 years, to 50% every 20 years. . .policies that would also slow the wealthy's "income growth from 275% to 100%. . .there would still be growth. . .as you so "clerverly" noted, but at least it wouldn't be obscene!

Why is it that in your mind any progress for the "poor" must automatically come at the expense of someone else?

When the economy is back on track, unemployment is down to "normal" unemployment (which is anywhere between 4.5 and 5.5% unemployment) AND when the deficit is under control.

Great...so never.

Why. . .does it matter that much? The Bush tax cuts were "suppose" to end in 2010, but, obviously, those were tax cuts targetted for the wealthy. . .so they were FORCED to continue by the GOP blackmail!

Those cuts would have been ended if not for the recession...and most likely they will be ended ultimately.

But, let us not forget, Obama campaigned to extend most of those cuts.

Don't you think that the cuts in spending are a huge sacrifice for the poor and the middle class? I would say they carry the BIGGEST share of the sacrifice!
Don't tell me that you think it is easier for a person making $40,000 to give up the school lunch for their kids, or to pay more for their medicare, than it is for a person making $1.5 million to pay an additional $2,500 in tax!

It doesn't matter who it is easier for. Maybe it is easier for me to not work a day in my life and pay no income tax ever, but does that mean that is how I ought to decide what I do?

This is so fake! Do you think the medicare cuts, the cuts in teacher salary, the cuts in police jobs, the cuts in Medicaid programs are NOTHING?

If the money is not there, it is not there.

You mean. . .the CEO that decides to lay off 3,000 employees so that his stock price goes up. . .the one who makes (even when his profits go down) a compensation totalling over $100 millions a year?

No, I mean the one fights to lay off no one, and then when forced to make cuts, does so only to save the jobs of everyone else.

Yes, I'm certain that it is a huge issue to have to decide whether they'll be able to take the 4 weeks vacation to take that cruise around the world, or in which mansion they will host Thanksgiving dinner for their 40 closest "business associates," and which business associate should be included in the invitation, so as to reep the most profit from those "connections!"

Why do you resent successful people spending the money they earned?

How about the nurse who has REAL responsibility of 3 people EVERY NIGHT in the intensive care unit?
How about the police chief who has the responsibility to keep his crew on the dangerous inner city street, and see his crew cut down by 20%?

A CEO with the livlihoods of 10,000 people in their hands has no responsible, but a nurse does....got it.

You really need to take a few days to experience REAL life outside your "golden box!" your insensitivity is . . . sad! If their REAL income grew so that they could actually experience some benefit from it. . .for exemple, if THEIR income grew by 275% and the wealthy income grew by 20%. . . .Do you think the . . .wealthy would "lose" by having their incomes grow???

No, I think that would be growth for all.

Ambition is good. . .runaway greed is evil. Milton Friedman is NOT appreciated by everyone, in fact lots of economists totally disagree with his principles. And. . .he is dead, so he hasn't experienced the consequences of his policies, as we all are today! Now, Alan Greenspan himself had to recognize that he was wrong in "trusting the market!"
Europe is not worst off than we are . . .I know there is a thread that very happily anounced "Europe demise," but at the very least. . . it was very premature!

And many economists do not discount Freidman...so thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

[BigRob]

Wrong again. You are only looking at "generalized inflation," based on that "basket" of goods.

Perhaps you overlooked my statement of:
Now, obviously we have a ton of other factors at play here, but discount all of those and there are areas where these numbers make some sense. You can still find jobs that pay in that range, and depending on where you are located (same as is 1971, you can find a house for that)

Clearly there is more to it, but for the sake of simplicity, you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[GenSeneca]

At least I back up my "gospel" with facts!

The data you posted does not support your claims.

Are you really calling a 20% growth in 20 years a real, effective growth???
And if the poor can be "so much better off" with a 20% growth in 20 years, why is it soooo important for the wealthy to keep their 275% growth? Why not setting up policies that would help the poor's "income growth" from 20% every 20 years, to 50% every 20 years. . .policies that would also slow the wealthy's "income growth from 275% to 100%. . .there would still be growth. . .as you so "clerverly" noted, but at least it wouldn't be obscene!

You are trying to claim that higher income growth for one group comes at the expense of income growth from the other groups, but you have offered no evidence to support that theory.

BigRob pointed out that having the top 1% pack up their toys and leave would drastically reduce the "income gap" but what you cannot admit is that such an occurance wouldn't actually benefit anyone. Also, you completely ignore income mobility. As the income for an individual at the bottom grows, they move out of the bottom into the next quintile, this is true for all upward mobility of income and it's also one reason why the growth percentages get larger as you go higher up the ladder.

 

[Openmind]

The data you posted does not support your claims.


You are trying to claim that higher income growth for one group comes at the expense of income growth from the other groups, but you have offered no evidence to support that theory.

BigRob pointed out that having the top 1% pack up their toys and leave would drastically reduce the "income gap" but what you cannot admit is that such an occurance wouldn't actually benefit anyone. Also, you completely ignore income mobility. As the income for an individual at the bottom grows, they move out of the bottom into the next quintile, this is true for all upward mobility of income and it's also one reason why the growth percentages get larger as you go higher up the ladder.

Can you offer evidence that the LARGE increase in wealth for the top quintile didn't correlate with the low increase in wealth for the bottom 20 quintile AND the mediocre increase for the two middle quintile?

Can you say that, in the last 30 years, the economy grew enough to provide a 275% increase in wealth to EVERYONE in the US?

Can you say that, if the top 20% had not increased their wealth by 275%, the bottom would not have had a better chance at increasing their wealth by 50 or 70%?

And. . .once again I ask the question (which no one seems willing to answer!) Where does that "larger growth percentage in the upper income ladder" stops? Do you think it is possible that it goes on for ever, and that at some point, the upper income ladder may grow at 1000% faster than the bottom of the ladder? How do you picture a society where 95% of the wealth is cluster in 1% of the population?

And. . .if this trend is not finite. . .what is the next step? Could it be that 1% actually ENSLAVE the bottom 95% because they hold ALL the wealth?

Now. . .why do I feel that, once again, you will choose not to answer those questions?

 

[dogtowner]

And. . .if this trend is not finite. . .what is the next step? Could it be that 1% actually ENSLAVE the bottom 95% because they hold ALL the wealth?

Now. . .why do I feel that, once again, you will choose not to answer those questions?

like Mao or Stalin ?

 

[Openmind]

like Mao or Stalin ?

You know. . .there is a theory that says that Right/Left are NOT on a continuum, but on a CIRCULAR continuum, with the two extremes (RIGHT AND LEFT) meeting to create fascism.


So. . .your "catty" remark may not be as far from the truth as you may think!