Printable View
Dread, entertain the notion that "America's Revolution" may not start in one particular region, but around public policy.
If we consider the dairy belt, farm belt, rust belt, Bible belt....alongside east and west coasts (commonly called right or left coasts)....the Times they are a'changing.
Uh, okay. Your point being?
What's that, some quiet reply before you go to sleep? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
My point is the same now as it was then (at Atari). For those who believe, almost like it's a religion, that freee markets expand the greater pie.....explain why the pie's cuts have shrunk for 90-98% of the pie's laborers.
Underlying social contracts can't be placed in graph form, can they?
Loki, your graph is using 2007 income, before the big "crash" and its aftermath. Got any newer data?
I'm sorry, but this is completely irrelevant to what was being posted about (unionized state employees in the northeast).Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I'm not sorry to point out, that this "Revolution" (as you call it) began in 2010, in the midwest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
So your entire point is based on only the last 4 years? :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...grafiikka3.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
j00000dens! Or whatever language that graph is in. :rolleyes:
'Course, even that awful graph makes the free market point. In 60 years, those poor bottom 5% have ~tripled the height of their line. God damn evil kapitalists, giving the poor progressively more money. :mad:
Would you like to put this graph into context?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I fail to see how your earlier post about things starting in other places around public policy would have led ANYONE here to what you just laid out.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Couldn't have picked a more appropriate smilie there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Funnily enough, the top of the blue part of the graph marks the bottom of the top fifth percentile. Which makes the free market point, certainly, but perhaps with slightly different connotations. Not that you'd have anything against those, either, but there you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
So. . . in 1947 the bottom of the top fifth percentile was at about what, $40k annually? If I'm correctly parsing this graph whose non-numeric terms are gibberish to me? So what it is predominantly doing is showing us the gap through the massive distortion of non-normalized terms?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
We're all about dishonest tactics and discussion without exchanging information or ideas here at TWF, don'tcha kno'. Graphs made to shock viewers of a TV show are good for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The point they're making is that the bottom of the top 0.1% has rather escaped the growth-rate of everybody else. If you actually want to see what they're saying (and who is the one saying it), google the citation (Piketty and Saez). You might not want to waste your time though, as in a few hours you'll probably get to read a very witty and "j99"-riddled debunking of it, so you get educated and entertained. Imagine the efficiency the Invisible Hand will be able to do once Michele wins!
It was in context. The context was Nessie's ridiculous, distorted graph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Well, it is funny, but not for that reason. "0,1%" is 0.1%, and I see that just fine, no matter the language. So the silly point your distorted, non-normalized graph is making is that the richest thousandth (by annual income) are making an average(?) of 1.4 million dollars a year now? ZOMG, teh h0rr0z!@!!!1 That sure shows all us evil kapitalists a thing or two about... how much we have to make to be in the top tenth of the top percentile in annual income. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Or, to be more succinct, like I said originally, "j00000dens!"
From the other thread way back when? Mine was a glib response to his.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Are you accusing me of anti-Semitism?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Except we can't actually see anything of the sort with that graph. Even if they had stayed roughly proportional when adjusted for inflation, the graph when unadjusted will still look more like the one you displayed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Then the post is just noise, and time would be better spent discussing how stupid unions are, non?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The context is that the top three quintiles (60% of the population) have shown consistent and significant improvement in their standards of living virtually every decade for the last 70 years. Even the two lowest quintiles have seen their inflation-adjusted income increase significantly over that time period. So the rich are getting richer, but so is everyone else. And the middle class that everyone always whines about has seen sharp increases in income every decade but the '70s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Er. Look, neutrinos may be going faster than light but for most of us time and causality are still the way they've always been :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Okay but the complaint, from what I've gathered, is mostly that the richest are getting richer far faster than they should be while the less rich aren't, and, in the end, less and less of your nation's assets are staying in the hands of people in those lower quintiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Wrt context would it be fair to assume that a great deal of the increase in income is related to college attendance rates?
Re. standards of living and inflation adjusted income, how do things look if you adjust for eg. costs of housing and healthcare and the like?
Just how quickly should the rich be making money? Should they try and make money at a slower rate than they currently are?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I don't know, you tell me. What are the pros and cons of increasingly rapid growth in inequality? Who's served by it other than those who directly benefit from having the most $$$? I'm sure economists and sociologists etc. have looked at that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
When I said "should" I didn't mean it in the moral sense. You can read it as "far faster than we might expect".
Don't worry Enoch, it will decend into class warfare and wealth envy soon enough...Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
This just makes me sad :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
What should they be? Why does it matter how much richer they become as long as everyone is better off? Do you prefer the communist model where everyone becomes equally poor? The reality is that we now have an informational economy, and those who have access of that information or make use of it quicker or better than others are going to make huge profits. The rich weren't making so much money before because there's only so much money to be made from manufacturing or agriculture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
There has been a drastic transformation of the economy, likely due to technological innovation and increased globalization. As a result, more jobs require the kind of skills that a college education provides. If we had more college graduates 50 years ago, it's far from certain whether there would be enough jobs that would demand their skills (this is a common problem in Asian and Middle Eastern countries today). So yes, a college education is increasing people's income, but the utility of that education must be viewed in the larger context of a new global economy that privileges services/information to manufacturing/agriculture. It's interesting to note that the same people complaining about the fate of the middle class would have us go back to a manufacturing-oriented economy that has much lesser need for education.Quote:
Wrt context would it be fair to assume that a great deal of the increase in income is related to college attendance rates?
This is adjusted for inflation...housing and healthcare are part of prices, and are therefore adjusted for. Think of it like this: what does your median household have today compared to 50 years ago? The median household still has a house, a large amount of food, and clothes. But now everyone has TVs, computers, cell-phones, internet, refrigerators, etc. I really don't understand how anyone can claim that people today aren't better off than their grandparents, who had far fewer household appliances, fewer cars, would never leave their state to go on vacation, etc.Quote:
Re. standards of living and inflation adjusted income, how do things look if you adjust for eg. costs of housing and healthcare and the like?
That's a question that deserves to be examined. What are the consequences of [increasing] economic inequality? I've personally only seen the question approached from political and moral angles. Economists never content with answers like "it's good enough because everyone's better off" when there are possible scenarios in which everyone might be even better off. Surely some great economic thinkers have looked at the consequences of eg. income inequality...??Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Thanks for some more context :o I just realised that most of those college graduates are probably not in the 20th percentile in that graph. I have no idea why GGT would want you guys to go back to a manufacturing-oriented economy, we should ask her.Quote:
There has been a drastic transformation of the economy, likely due to technological innovation and increased globalization. As a result, more jobs require the kind of skills that a college education provides. If we had more college graduates 50 years ago, it's far from certain whether there would be enough jobs that would demand their skills (this is a common problem in Asian and Middle Eastern countries today). So yes, a college education is increasing people's income, but the utility of that education must be viewed in the larger context of a new global economy that privileges services/information to manufacturing/agriculture. It's interesting to note that the same people complaining about the fate of the middle class would have us go back to a manufacturing-oriented economy that has much lesser need for education.
I realise that it's adjusted for inflation, but I know that the costs of healthcare and education have been rising faster than inflation, and last I heard housing prices in many areas have been rising pretty fast as well. It's been identified as one of the most important reasons for your homelessness problem.Quote:
This is adjusted for inflation...housing and healthcare are part of prices, and are therefore adjusted for. Think of it like this: what does your median household have today compared to 50 years ago? The median household still has a house, a large amount of food, and clothes. But now everyone has TVs, computers, cell-phones, internet, refrigerators, etc. I really don't understand how anyone can claim that people today aren't better off than their grandparents, who had far fewer household appliances, fewer cars, would never leave their state to go on vacation, etc.
It's great that people have two cars and five ipads but I can't help but feel as if it might be even better if people also had more quality time with their kids and less stress in their lives :o
Depends... would it make for a more interesting thread? Well, if it would make for a more interesting thread, you can run with that assumption, but no... really just a knee-jerk to a baldly distorted bunch of shit about rich people and something about having money being bad for no particular reason and blah blah whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
They don't claim that. They're just jealous whiners who don't like that someone else has it better than them. That's what this shit about "income inequality" being inherently bad really is - pure, unadulterated, jealousy. Whining and bitching that other people got lucky and fell backwards into piles of monies (well, combined working their asses off, intelligence and luck) and they didn't. Waaaaa, boohoo, life is unfair. :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What's particularly unfair is that such people have the enormous wealth and freedoms of the 1st world wasted on their petty selves. Want "equality?" Go work on a farm in some 3rd world shithole for just enough to survive so you can get raped, brutalized and executed if you bitch about income disparity. That's fair, according to world standards, but no one seems to complain much about that... only about the people better off than them, because the root issue is jealousy, and not anything actually related to equality.
Oh myQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain