The Great Wealth Transfer

[shiva2999]

Paul Krugman hates America


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print

The Great Wealth Transfer
It's the biggest untold economic story of our time: more of the nation's bounty held in fewer and fewer hands. And Bush's tax cuts are only making the problem worse
PAUL KRUGMAN

Why doesn't Bush get credit for the strong economy?" That question has been asked over and over again in recent months by political pundits. After all, they point out, the gross domestic product is up; unemployment, at least according to official figures, is low by historical standards; and stocks have recovered much of the ground they lost in the early years of the decade, with the Dow surpassing 12,000 for the first time. Yet the public remains deeply unhappy with the state of the economy. In a recent poll, only a minority of Americans rated the economy as "excellent" or "good," while most consider it no better than "fair" or "poor."

Are people just ungrateful? Is the administration failing to get its message out? Are the news media, as conservatives darkly suggest, deliberately failing to report the good news?

None of the above. The reason most Americans think the economy is fair to poor is simple: For most Americans, it really is fair to poor. Wages have failed to keep up with rising prices. Even in 2005, a year in which the economy grew quite fast, the income of most non-elderly families lagged behind inflation. The number of Americans in poverty has risen even in the face of an official economic recovery, as has the number of Americans without health insurance. Most Americans are little, if any, better off than they were last year and definitely worse off than they were in 2000.

But how is this possible? The economic pie is getting bigger -- how can it be true that most Americans are getting smaller slices? The answer, of course, is that a few people are getting much, much bigger slices. Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled. The gap between the nation's CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. And while Bush's tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush's tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year -- the richest five percent of the population -- will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year -- eighty percent of America -- will receive barely a quarter of the cuts. In the Bush era, economic inequality is on the rise.

Rising inequality isn't new. The gap between rich and poor started growing before Ronald Reagan took office, and it continued to widen through the Clinton years. But what is happening under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth -- and they know it.

...more...

[gilchristfan]

I keep seeing these articles through the years about the world's wealth being controlled by fewer and fewer people.

It should be down to about 3 by now. Wonder who they are?

[shiva2999]

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Drew Bledsoe.

[ticatfan3]

I thought you were talking about the kyoto accord.

[gilchristfan]

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Drew Bledsoe.

For extra credit:

Of those 3 which once owned a pimped out Winnebago Ultimate Freedom RV?

http://www.motorhomesusa.com/images/winnebago/P33MHRA062105-013sz.jpg

Nothing shows a concentration of wealth better than a Bago.

[35Pete]

OUR nation's wealth? How about THEIR wealth?

There is no "We're all in this together" collectivist crap.

Is that how you guys think? That the GNI belongs to the people? And if an ambitious innovative person like Gates comes along and increases the size of the pie that other people should have a piece of his?

[anEinherjer]

Krugman's an ass.

Tell me how prices just keep on rising. Tell me how someone's wealth today is so far behind what they could do 20, 30 years ago.

Most Americans are little, if any, better off than they were last year and definitely worse off than they were in 2000.

Wait, you mean year-on-year differences are minimal, and people aren't better off than they were just at the beginning of the last recession? Say it isn't so!!

"The gap between rich and poor" WILL ALWAYS RISE in a nation where there is no limit on how much one person can have. Do I need to explain it? Here: Rich guy's wealth goes up 10%, poor guy's wealth goes up 10% - *gasp* The "gap" has increased!! Raise taxes on the rich!

If you want to live in such a land, go for it. I'm glad that's not my land, though.

Rolling Stone and Krugman are a bunch of whiny bitches. This is nothing more than their usual class warfare tripe. I don't see Rolling Stone and Paul Krugman divesting themselves of most of their own assets to help the poor.

[TheGoodShepherd]

OUR nation's wealth? How about THEIR wealth?

There is no "We're all in this together" collectivist crap.

Is that how you guys think? That the GNI belongs to the people? And if an ambitious innovative person like Gates comes along and increases the size of the pie that other people should have a piece of his?


It's not their wealth.

They wouldnt have SHIT if they didn't have access to the American market. You want to play in the world's number one market? Then you have to pay through taxes.

I also find it ridiculous you give credit to one CEO. As if the thousands of employees who work for these rich freeloaders had nothing at all to do with the wealth accumulated in vast fortunes.

Tax the rich more. They want to suck the market dry and amass ridiculous amounts of wealth? Then they're going to pay heavier taxes for such access to the American market.


Nothing personal. It's just business.

[anEinherjer]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

"rich freeloaders"??? "suck the market dry"???

What the hell do you think the wealthy DO with that wealth, Chimpster?

[shiva2999]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

"rich freeloaders"??? "suck the market dry"???

What the hell do you think the wealthy DO with that wealth, Chimpster?

They invest it in the stock market.

And we all know the stock market is the #1 indicator of economic health!

Anytime you want to start having a real point, feel free.

Tell me again how America is the world's #1 superpower so you have to be doing something right.

Logic like that is priceless.

[35Pete]

It's not their wealth.

They wouldnt have SHIT if they didn't have access to the American market. You want to play in the world's number one market? Then you have to pay through taxes.

I also find it ridiculous you give credit to one CEO. As if the thousands of employees who work for these rich freeloaders had nothing at all to do with the wealth accumulated in vast fortunes.

Tax the rich more. They want to suck the market dry and amass ridiculous amounts of wealth? Then they're going to pay heavier taxes for such access to the American market.


Nothing personal. It's just business.

Workers are an expense. And a CEO can make a corporation incredibly successful, or bring it down. They don't deserve anymore or less than they are worth.

[TheGoodShepherd]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

"rich freeloaders"??? "suck the market dry"???

What the hell do you think the wealthy DO with that wealth, Chimpster?

What do they do with it? Simple. Try to attain more wealth at the expense of everyone else.

In other words, hire tax lawyers to ensure they don't pay their fair share of taxes. Thereby robbing the IRS, which is public money, of millions.

[35Pete]

Hire tax lawyers to ensure they dont pay their fair share of taxes.

It's a case by case. Some get out of almost all taxes and that sucks. But those that eventually wind up paying the same rate as the working slob are paying more than their fair share.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Workers are an expense. And a CEO can make a corporation incredibly successful, or bring it down. They don't deserve anymore or less than they are worth.

This is incredibly stupid. In fact, it's beyond stupid.

And i'll tell you why.

Microsoft could never have become as big as it is without workers. Neither could GM,Ford,Chrysler etc.

Dont try to set the rules of the debate. It's annoying.

Thank you.

[TheGoodShepherd]

It's a case by case. Some get out of almost all taxes and that sucks. But those that eventually wind up paying the same rate as the working slob are paying more than their fair share.


Of course, according to IRS statistics, that's simply not true. It's actually the opposite.

[35Pete]

This is incredibly stupid. In fact, it's beyond stupid.

And i'll tell you why.

Microsoft could never have become as big as it is without workers. Neither could GM,Ford,Chrysler etc.

Dont try to set the rules of the debate. It's annoying.

Thank you.

And without Microsoft those people would be eating out of garbage cans.

There is a reason people make so much money. They are the leaders. The ones that make things happen. Workers can be replaced. Entrepeneurs cannot be so easily.

[pmoon6]

Posting a Paul Krugman article is just like posting Ann Coulter except she has more balls.

[Angus]

OUR nation's wealth? How about THEIR wealth?

There is no "We're all in this together" collectivist crap.

Is that how you guys think? That the GNI belongs to the people? And if an ambitious innovative person like Gates comes along and increases the size of the pie that other people should have a piece of his?

Maybe so and to the extent someone out-earned someone else due to having worked harder, longer and smarter, I think they should absolutely get a far bigger piece of the pie. And that piece, large though it may be, is justly "theirs". There is, however, much more to think about here. Wealth doesn't always simply follow merit. There are ways to get rich, or rather richer, that have nothing do with earning it.

I don't think anyone here, right or left, would disagree with the notion that our law makers can be bought. Let me know if you disagree with that.

I also don't think that anyone would disagree with the assertion that there is no shortage of people and entities who are willing to shower law makers with cash to buy, er, um, ahem, "influence" their votes. Let me know if you disagree.

I also don't think that anyone would disagree with the notion that the laws that are passed, defeated, repealed, amended, extended, etc, by our law makers can have a dramatic effect on the wealth of those persons and entities showering law makers with cash. That is why they spend that money, it is quite literally an investment for them. Let me know if you disagree and think that these folks spend millions based solely on principle.

Having conceded that congressmen can be bought, that their decisions dramatically effect individual/corporate wealth and that people spend millions to buy the laws that enrich them, you are left with an uncomfortable reality. Those who can, unfairly manipulate the laws of the land to suit their purposes, mainly to increase their wealth. This is not "earned" wealth.

I am certain you have no problem seeing this when it comes to legislative initiatives that help the have-nots of the world. I can't count how many times I have heard the earned income tax credit denounced hereabouts as outright theft. At the same time, I don't see too much complaining when the theivery is going the other way like selling off public assets for peanuts.

I suppose you could take the position that never, ever, ever, ever, ever have the wealthiest of Americans, despite all the money they spend to "influence" law makers, been able to manipulate the legislative process to unfailry enrich themselves and that all such manipulations have, without fail, gone the other way.

I tend to think that when it comes to buying off your local congressman, money talks and the people with money are, unsurprisingly, the people with money. Maybe they unfailingly use their bought and paid for political power altruistically for the good of others or maybe, just maybe, that money is an investment, a wise one that turns a healthy profit.

Either you conclude that the poor have as much political influence as the wealthy despite their lack of wealth, the currency of power or you conclude that the wealthy spend all that money only to do good and never in pursuit of their own self interests. Oherwise, you are forced to conclude that though many people try to unfairly manipulate the law to enrich themselves, the wealthy are the most successful at it. The wealthier they become, the more they can manipulate the law to become wealthier still.

Laws that benefit the poor are frightening proof of creeping socialism while laws that benefit the rich are examples of the free market at its best.

Beyond all this is an even larger question. How do you build a tranquil society that rewards not only the industrious, but the simply lucky without limit?

How to divy up society's goods is a problem that has plauged nation after nation throughout history. I don't think I am being radical in suggesting that in most societies through history, the goods have not been divied up fairly. Our own nation's claim to uniqueness is largely based on our belief that we have found a fair and just way to divy up the goods using a combination of democracy and free markets. Still, we are no more immune from the very basic fact that always the haves will try to have more leaving less and less for the have nots. Times change and so do economies. Our own economy can and has been twisted and turned this way and that by social and legislative forces of all kinds. How hard is it to imagine that on occasion the haves are having just a little too much? When that happens, how would you put on the brakes and even the scales? Or do you take the "what me worry?" position that it never, ever happens?

Even if it is unfair, even if it is, in your view, thievery, are there not occasions where unfairness, even theft, is the lesser evil? Think Jean Valjean
here. What would have been the worse crime, letting children starve or letting the theft of a loaf of bread go unpunished?

[shiva2999]

Posting a Paul Krugman article is just like posting Ann Coulter...

Only if posting a Dalai Lama article is just like posting an Adolf Hitler article.

[pmoon6]

Only if posting a Dalai Lama article is just like posting an Adolf Hitler article.:rofl: And they say you're losing your touch.

[anEinherjer]

They invest it in the stock market.

And we all know the stock market is the #1 indicator of economic health!

Anytime you want to start having a real point, feel free.

Tell me again how America is the world's #1 superpower so you have to be doing something right.

Logic like that is priceless.

No point in getting bitter, Shiva old boy. The superpower quip was in a different thread, but it's true, for how far it goes.

Face it, the rich guys aren't sitting with all that wealth tied up in liquid assets under their mattress. They buy shit. They invest in shit. They DO shit with their money. It's not like wealth controlled by rich guys is taken away from "the poor".

It's not like the economy is a zero-sum game, and that's precisely the way bitches like Krugman portray it.

[anEinherjer]

I don't think anyone here, right or left, would disagree with the notion that our law makers can be bought. Let me know if you disagree with that.

Not disagreeing, but just pointing to the fact that if government didn't have the ability to grant favors to those who buy them, people wouldn't waste their time gaming the system.

Having conceded that congressmen can be bought, that their decisions dramatically effect individual/corporate wealth and that people spend millions to buy the laws that enrich them, you are left with an uncomfortable reality. Those who can, unfairly manipulate the laws of the land to suit their purposes, mainly to increase their wealth. This is not "earned" wealth.

So the answer, for the statists among us, is more government. Tell me that's not the height of insanity.

It's not an uncomfortable reality for me, Angus. I see the system as broken, but I don't decry those who've been better at playing the game as it's set up. I'd rather fix the damn game. Class warfare is not the way to do it.

I am certain you have no problem seeing this when it comes to legislative initiatives that help the have-nots of the world. I can't count how many times I have heard the earned income tax credit denounced hereabouts as outright theft. At the same time, I don't see too much complaining when the theivery is going the other way like selling off public assets for peanuts.

Come on now. This is hyperbole. "how many times" has the earned income credit even been mentioned around here?

Laws that benefit the poor are frightening proof of creeping socialism while laws that benefit the rich are examples of the free market at its best.

I don't know where you pull a quote like this, but it's poppycock. I've already stated my belief that if we're going to pass laws benefiting people, any law benefitting one American should benefit ALL Americans.

How to divy up society's goods is a problem that has plauged nation after nation throughout history. I don't think I am being radical in suggesting that in most societies through history, the goods have not been divied up fairly. Our own nation's claim to uniqueness is largely based on our belief that we have found a fair and just way to divy up the goods using a combination of democracy and free markets. Still, we are no more immune from the very basic fact that always the haves will try to have more leaving less and less for the have nots.

More zero-sum poppycock in the Shiva mold. The whole point is to make the pie bigger.

Our belief has nothing to do with fairly "divvying up goods", but giving everyone the opportunity to grow their own wealth. Where opportunity is denied, I have no problem with gov't doing something, because it's usually one group actively denying another, or acting in some other fraudulent manner (which I always decry).

Even if it is unfair, even if it is, in your view, thievery, are there not occasions where unfairness, even theft, is the lesser evil? Think Jean Valjean
here. What would have been the worse crime, letting children starve or letting the theft of a loaf of bread go unpunished?

What, precisely, is unfair about wealthy people getting wealthier? What, precisely, is unfair about the rich getting richer faster than the poor getting richer? (poor getting poorer is utter poppycock, and really: What is unfair about current America, other than plain jealousy)

[Angus]

No point in getting bitter, Shiva old boy. The superpower quip was in a different thread, but it's true, for how far it goes.

Face it, the rich guys aren't sitting with all that wealth tied up in liquid assets under their mattress. They buy shit. They invest in shit. They DO shit with their money. It's not like wealth controlled by rich guys is taken away from "the poor".

It's not like the economy is a zero-sum game, and that's precisely the way bitches like Krugman portray it.

You are correct, it is not a zero sum game. If I spend $100 on a pair of Nike's and $99.99 of that goes to the CEO of Nike and that last penny gets divided in to thirtieths among the 30 asian sweat shop workers who produced the actual product, then it isn't a zero sum game. Thirty poor people got 1/30th of a penny. Don't believe your eyes, it isn't slavery, it just looks that way.

The point is that there is a $100 pie to divide up in that model and how we divide it up is what determines whether our economy is one worth keeping.

What Krugman is essentially saying is that we are not dividing it up in a way that is fair or even, in the long run, viable. That is why he thinks that the stats which measure the economy on a large scale are positive yet stats which measure the economy for individuals show something much more negative.

Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong but his hypothesis is logical. An economy where more and more wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a few would explain numbers showing an economy in recovery but a majority of individuals reporting trouble. If the economy was lifting all boats, the individual numbers whould reflect that but they don't.

What is your explanation for the discrepancy? Are people just too stupid to know when they are in good financial shape?

[shiva2999]

No point in getting bitter, Shiva old boy. The superpower quip was in a different thread, but it's true, for how far it goes.


It was as dumb in that context as it is in this one.

Nothing like an all purpose rejoinder. You can use it to refute any argument.

Face it, the rich guys aren't sitting with all that wealth tied up in liquid assets under their mattress. They buy shit. They invest in shit. They DO shit with their money. It's not like wealth controlled by rich guys is taken away from "the poor".

The poor do shit with their money too. And most of it involves spending it in the country.

The investing class owes no allegiances and will go where it gets the best return.

This "we've gotta give the money to the rich because the rich are the entrepreneurs" is so stupid it makes my ears bleed.

It's not like the economy is a zero-sum game, and that's precisely the way bitches like Krugman portray it.

I've never seen him portray it as a zero sum game.

Maybe you're having a splenetic reaction again?

[anEinherjer]

The whole idea of a "law" that somehow helps the "free market" is kind of bizarre, if you think about it.

[35Pete]

Maybe so and to the extent someone out-earned someone else due to having worked harder, longer and smarter, I think they should absolutely get a far bigger piece of the pie. And that piece, large though it may be, is justly "theirs". There is, however, much more to think about here. Wealth doesn't always simply follow merit. There are ways to get rich, or rather richer, that have nothing do with earning it.

I don't think anyone here, right or left, would disagree with the notion that our law makers can be bought. Let me know if you disagree with that.

I also don't think that anyone would disagree with the assertion that there is no shortage of people and entities who are willing to shower law makers with cash to buy, er, um, ahem, "influence" their votes. Let me know if you disagree.

I also don't think that anyone would disagree with the notion that the laws that are passed, defeated, repealed, amended, extended, etc, by our law makers can have a dramatic effect on the wealth of those persons and entities showering law makers with cash. That is why they spend that money, it is quite literally an investment for them. Let me know if you disagree and think that these folks spend millions based solely on principle.

Having conceded that congressmen can be bought, that their decisions dramatically effect individual/corporate wealth and that people spend millions to buy the laws that enrich them, you are left with an uncomfortable reality. Those who can, unfairly manipulate the laws of the land to suit their purposes, mainly to increase their wealth. This is not "earned" wealth.

I am certain you have no problem seeing this when it comes to legislative initiatives that help the have-nots of the world. I can't count how many times I have heard the earned income tax credit denounced hereabouts as outright theft. At the same time, I don't see too much complaining when the theivery is going the other way like selling off public assets for peanuts.

I suppose you could take the position that never, ever, ever, ever, ever have the wealthiest of Americans, despite all the money they spend to "influence" law makers, been able to manipulate the legislative process to unfailry enrich themselves and that all such manipulations have, without fail, gone the other way.

I tend to think that when it comes to buying off your local congressman, money talks and the people with money are, unsurprisingly, the people with money. Maybe they unfailingly use their bought and paid for political power altruistically for the good of others or maybe, just maybe, that money is an investment, a wise one that turns a healthy profit.

Either you conclude that the poor have as much political influence as the wealthy despite their lack of wealth, the currency of power or you conclude that the wealthy spend all that money only to do good and never in pursuit of their own self interests. Oherwise, you are forced to conclude that though many people try to unfairly manipulate the law to enrich themselves, the wealthy are the most successful at it. The wealthier they become, the more they can manipulate the law to become wealthier still.

Laws that benefit the poor are frightening proof of creeping socialism while laws that benefit the rich are examples of the free market at its best.

Beyond all this is an even larger question. How do you build a tranquil society that rewards not only the industrious, but the simply lucky without limit?

How to divy up society's goods is a problem that has plauged nation after nation throughout history. I don't think I am being radical in suggesting that in most societies through history, the goods have not been divied up fairly. Our own nation's claim to uniqueness is largely based on our belief that we have found a fair and just way to divy up the goods using a combination of democracy and free markets. Still, we are no more immune from the very basic fact that always the haves will try to have more leaving less and less for the have nots. Times change and so do economies. Our own economy can and has been twisted and turned this way and that by social and legislative forces of all kinds. How hard is it to imagine that on occasion the haves are having just a little too much? When that happens, how would you put on the brakes and even the scales? Or do you take the "what me worry?" position that it never, ever happens?

Even if it is unfair, even if it is, in your view, thievery, are there not occasions where unfairness, even theft, is the lesser evil? Think Jean Valjean
here. What would have been the worse crime, letting children starve or letting the theft of a loaf of bread go unpunished?

Before I add to this let me say that I think that you appear to be extrapolating from the speicific to the general. I.e, painting with a broad brush. True. There are those that attempt to use money for gaining influence. Then why pray tell do you want a large and powerful central government? Why? The founders didn't. They sure as hell are rolling in their graves over the monster that has been created. Why do you say "societies goods?" They don't belong to everyone. That simple. The have-nots can fend for themselves. They have opprotunity staring them in the face yet look like deer in the headlights. That's their problem. Discomfort is indeed a great motivator. You do no one any service by taking that away. Get rid of most of the federal government and the "bought and paid for issue" (which I think you are grossly overblowing) will go away. In the meanwhile, don't look at wealth as belonging to society. It belongs to individuals.

[anEinherjer]

You are correct, it is not a zero sum game. If I spend $100 on a pair of Nike's and $99.99 of that goes to the CEO of Nike and that last penny gets divided in to thirtieths among the 30 asian sweat shop workers who produced the actual product, then it isn't a zero sum game. Thirty poor people got 1/30th of a penny. Don't believe your eyes, it isn't slavery, it just looks that way.

:rofl: Oh, that old canard.

Never mind the fact that the asian workers could go work somewhere else if there was more money to be made. Do I like the breakdown? Of course not. But if the people there decide making 1/30th of a penny is worthwhile compared to shoveling dirt, then what am I to do about it?

The point is that there is a $100 pie to divide up in that model and how we divide it up is what determines whether our economy is one worth keeping.

Yes, but making the crazy assumption that $100 is all we'll ever have is, honestly, just stupid. The $100 will become $200 with human labor as the only input.

If the economy was lifting all boats, the individual numbers whould reflect that but they don't.

What is your explanation for the discrepancy? Are people just too stupid to know when they are in good financial shape?

Honestly, yes. Demonstrate to me where all boats are not being lifted! Could you afford a flat-panel TV 10 years ago? I know I couldn't. Could you afford a car with anti-lock brakes 50 years ago? I doubt it.

We're all better off as the world economy grows. I absolutely reject the theory that Americans are worse off now than 10 years ago, 20 years, 30...

[shiva2999]

The whole idea of a "law" that somehow helps the "free market" is kind of bizarre, if you think about it.

So you're saying what we call our economic model should determine how it's run?

I vote for the "Give Your Money to Shiva Market".

[anEinherjer]

It was as dumb in that context as it is in this one.

Nothing like an all purpose rejoinder. You can use it to refute any argument.

Well, if you think it's dumb it's only because you're nowhere near a superpower. Admit it, you just want the bomb. :)

The poor do shit with their money too. And most of it involves spending it in the country.

The investing class owes no allegiances and will go where it gets the best return.

So now you're arguing that we're not in a global economy? Or that we should only help people in other countries through handouts?

Why in the world (pun intended) does it matter WHERE "the rich" invest their money? I thought you lefties were all about helping everyone in the world... ?

This "we've gotta give the money to the rich because the rich are the entrepreneurs" is so stupid it makes my ears bleed.

I didn't say we "gotta give the money" to anyone. You, Krugman, and your "intellectual" brethren are the only ones talking about "giving money" to anyone - by taking it from someone else.

[anEinherjer]

So you're saying what we call our economic model should determine how it's run?

I vote for the "Give Your Money to Shiva Market".

I'd vote for that. You'd do a better job with it than Congress (or whatever you call yoru Parliament up there).

No, what I'm saying is straightforward: Any law is a distortion of what would be happening naturally without that law - a "free market" is one without law, kind of by definition, isn't it? How is it possible to create laws that "help" a free market?

(just to defend myself against the scarecrow, I'm not suggesting that we have utterly free markets anywhere - systems must be in place to avoid, negate, or reduce the impact of fraud)

[TheGoodShepherd]

And without Microsoft those people would be eating out of garbage cans.

There is a reason people make so much money. They are the leaders. The ones that make things happen. Workers can be replaced. Entrepeneurs cannot be so easily.

It's incredible how you still miss the point.

[gilchristfan]

They invest it in the stock market.

And we all know the stock market is the #1 indicator of economic health!

Anytime you want to start having a real point, feel free.

Tell me again how America is the world's #1 superpower so you have to be doing something right.

Logic like that is priceless.

Who invests in the market?

Right now, about 58% of households own stock (up from about 15% in 1983), either directly or through retirement accounts.

In terms of the market itself, I believe household stock, whether through mutual funds, IRA's, Pension accounts, 401K's, etc, capitalize over 40% of the market. I'm not sure on the 40% figure, but I'd bet its pretty close.

[shiva2999]

Who invests in the market?

Right now, about 58% of households own stock (up from about 15% in 1983), either directly or through retirement accounts.

In terms of the market itself, I believe household stock, whether through mutual funds, IRA's, Pension accounts, 401K's, etc, capitalize over 40% of the market. I'm not sure on the 40% figure, but I'd bet its pretty close.

No one is saying the stock market is a bad thing per se.

It's just that the gov't pumping money to people that pump that money into the market and then pointing to that market as an indicator of how the economy is doing is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

Shiva and Chimp are owning this thread.

Eventually, the everyday folk will revolt if the problem continues to intensify.

[pmoon6]

Shiva and Chimp are owning this thread.

Eventually, the everyday folk will revolt if the problem continues to intensify.That's some of the funniest stuff I've read yet. Would you like some pom-poms or would you just prefer to give your appreciation in private. I'm sure Shiva and Chimp would prefer it that way.

[nehemiah]

Who invests in the market?

Right now, about 58% of households own stock (up from about 15% in 1983), either directly or through retirement accounts.

In terms of the market itself, I believe household stock, whether through mutual funds, IRA's, Pension accounts, 401K's, etc, capitalize over 40% of the market. I'm not sure on the 40% figure, but I'd bet its pretty close.o snap!

:popcorn:

gil lets everbody know what the five fingers said to the face.

[anEinherjer]

Shiva and Chimp are owning this thread.

Eventually, the everyday folk will revolt if the problem continues to intensify.

Please do! Tear down the government power structure that allows the wealthy to game the system in their favor!

Also, please to define how one person "owns" a thread when there is, what I think, considerable debate going back and forth. Or, if you're just cheerleading the class warfare, piss off. :)

[anEinherjer]

"o snap"?? :rofl: nehe, you are so current.

[nehemiah]

"o snap"?? :rofl: nehe, you are so current.word.

i keeps it real, homie.

[gilchristfan]

No one is saying the stock market is a bad thing per se.

It's just that the gov't pumping money to people that pump that money into the market and then pointing to that market as an indicator of how the economy is doing is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But I don't really see that as the government "pumping money to people to pump that money into the market"

Maybe that's the conservative side of my schizoid existence coming through, I see it as allowing people keep more of their own money.

The growth of things like mutual funds, IRA's , ESOP's and 401k's restructured the stock market, and where the capital is coming from.

Alot more people have a direct stake in it now than in the past.

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

Please do! Tear down the government power structure that allows the wealthy to game the system in their favor!

Also, please to define how one person "owns" a thread when there is, what I think, considerable debate going back and forth. Or, if you're just cheerleading the class warfare, piss off. :)

I think history teaches that if the gap does become too large, there will be a revolt.

And yes, I'm cheerleading class warfare.

When did that become a dirty word?

[35Pete]

I think history teaches that if the gap does become too large, there will be a revolt.

And yes, I'm cheerleading class warfare.

When did that become a dirty word?

Class warfare is ugly. It's always been a dirty word. I wouldn't be too proud of that statement. Shows me that you live a life of envy and jealosy. If you can't achieve, just take from those that do. That's pretty much what you are advocating.

[anEinherjer]

Class warfare is pointless. Where in history does "the gap" become the cause of revolt? Noone has been able to answer my question: Why is a large gap between rich and poor, in and of itself, a bad thing?

Pete: I like your latest post.

[nehemiah]

Where in history does "the gap" become the cause of revolt?are you for real?

it's been the cause of revolt throughout the course of history. sure, there are other factors, but it has certainly been the cause of revolt. to say otherwise is crazy talk.

[nehemiah]

Why is a large gap between rich and poor, in and of itself, a bad thing?that's a sucker question b/c you're looking, like you always do, for some "natural" reason why this gap is bad. there isn't one. and the reason for that is there is no "natural" reason for any economic structure's existence. but that's for another thread.

the gap is bad b/c it's better to be middle class than poor. undeniable.

people fall out of the gap, not jump up in status. this is overwhelmingly true. i know you can find a couple of dudes who "struck it rich", but the largest number of people leaving that gap head downwards. so the increase in the gap means an increase in the number of poor people.

so why don't you explain why it's a good thing to have more poor people?

[JoeMama]

I generally side w/ a free market approach to a lot of public policy.

I'm an economics guy, after all.

That being said, I absolutely cannot stand by-the-book, economic ideologues who refuse to consider any social science other than economics to judge public policy.

Society doesn't function in a vacuum. If we ran the country exclusively by an economics textbook, there would be no social equity - & ultimately - we'd wind up w/ a variation of modern fuedalism.

And look, it's good to consider economics as a piece of the puzzle to make sure gov't policy is streamlined & efficient. But by no means should economics constitute the only standard by which public policy is judged.

It's silly.

And it's the main reason I dropped the entire libertarian schtick. I prefer pragmatism to ideology. I'd rather do what works, even if it conflicts w/ my vision of what should or should not work. I'd rather be economically practical than economically fundamentalist.

[Mouldsie]

I generally side w/ a free market approach to a lot of public policy.

I'm an economics guy, after all.

That being said, I absolutely cannot stand by-the-book, economic ideologues who refuse to consider any social science other than economics to judge public policy.

Society doesn't function in a vacuum. If we ran the country exclusively by an economics textbook, there would be no social equity - & ultimately - we'd wind up w/ a variation of modern fuedalism.

And look, it's good to consider economics as a piece of the puzzle to make sure gov't policy is streamlined & efficient. But by no means should economics constitute the only standard by which public policy is judged.

It's silly.

And it's the main reason I dropped the entire libertarian schtick. I prefer pragmatism to ideology. I'd rather do what works, even if it conflicts w/ my vision of what should or should not work. I'd rather be economically practical than economically fundamentalist.

word

[gilchristfan]

that's a sucker question b/c you're looking, like you always do, for some "natural" reason why this gap is bad. there isn't one. and the reason for that is there is no "natural" reason for any economic structure's existence. but that's for another thread.

the gap is bad b/c it's better to be middle class than poor. undeniable.

people fall out of the gap, not jump up in status. this is overwhelmingly true. i know you can find a couple of dudes who "struck it rich", but the largest number of people leaving that gap head downwards. so the increase in the gap means an increase in the number of poor people.

so why don't you explain why it's a good thing to have more poor people?

OK, but can someone show me some real evidence that we have lost the middle class?

I mean, isn't home ownership at an all time high? Who are buying all of these houses? Its certainly not just the rich.

Tons of post WWII baby boomer houses were 2 or 3 bedroom, one bath houses, and that era was considered prosperous. Do they even build 2 bedroom houses anymore?

SUV sales dropped in the last few years, but that was due to gas prices. On the other hand, people certainly seem to be driving newer cars than when I was growing up. I grew up in a blue collar/some white collar/some self employed suburbia neighborhood, and most drove rust buckets (not hard to do in WNY, I agree). But few were buying new cars every 2-3 years. Most do now, however.

I've already pointed to stock ownership of households, i.e. the middle class. These are mostly retirement accounts. When Social Security was created, and why it continued, was because most people didn't have any type of retirement.

You can point to the number of uninsured as an example, but isn't that caused more by the rise of medical costs - the dance between the medical industry and the insurance industry? Or is it evidence that we are losing the middle class? I think its the former, myself.

Where did the middle class go? Did it go anywhere?

[nehemiah]

he asked why a gap was bad, counselor.

[gilchristfan]

he asked why a gap was bad, counselor.

Good thing you didn't ask him why government is bad. I don't think our server could handle the overload. :)

Anyways, do you think we've lost, or are losing, the middle class?

[nehemiah]

Good thing you didn't ask him why government is bad. I don't think our server could handle the overload. :)

Anyways, do you think we've lost, or are losing, the middle class?i don't think the middle class (from a strictly salary perspective) will ever go away.

however, housing costs (one thing to take out a mortgage and another to actually pay it off) are skyrocketing, education costs are skyrocketing (colleges) and medical costs (employers are dropping insurance plans or raising copays, etc) are skyrocketing, so if you take everything into consideration - yes, IMO, we are losing the middle class.

the things that built the middle class in this country, IMO, are cheap housing after WWII (and the GI Bill), cheap colleges after 1960, and unionized health insurance plans.

now that those 3 are being hurt, i don't see how it can NOT affect the middle class.

[anEinherjer]

that's a sucker question b/c you're looking, like you always do, for some "natural" reason why this gap is bad. there isn't one. and the reason for that is there is no "natural" reason for any economic structure's existence. but that's for another thread.

the gap is bad b/c it's better to be middle class than poor. undeniable.

people fall out of the gap, not jump up in status. this is overwhelmingly true. i know you can find a couple of dudes who "struck it rich", but the largest number of people leaving that gap head downwards. so the increase in the gap means an increase in the number of poor people.

so why don't you explain why it's a good thing to have more poor people?

Fine, but I'll argue it a different way. What is your definition of "poor"? Seems to me Americans who can afford DirecTV don't meet the definition, no matter how much of some man-made medium of exchange they have in their possession.

And your "more people fall than climb" is outright wrong. Sorry bub. Here's one rather nice article on it that you might want to re-read a few times:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006704

In fact, there was a rather lengthy and informative discussion on inequality in Cato Unbound from March of this year. You might want to read that as well, considering it's a bunch of guys paid to think about this stuff a lot more than you or I are:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/march-2006/


Class warfare is a stupid, bitchy way to get what you want.

[anEinherjer]

Your "education costs are skyrocketing" bit is invalid thanks to the ubiquity of federal loans (also the primary cause of the skyrocketing...).

Also, my hope is that the current "crisis" in health care costs forces us to reconsider the apparently iron clad link between employment and health care. Why should my options for health care be tied to who the **** I work for?

[anEinherjer]

...
But by no means should economics constitute the only standard by which public policy is judged.

It's silly.

And it's the main reason I dropped the entire libertarian schtick. I prefer pragmatism to ideology. I'd rather do what works, even if it conflicts w/ my vision of what should or should not work. I'd rather be economically practical than economically fundamentalist.

Hey Joe, I still disagree with your "dropped the libertarian shtick" bit. You're still one of us whether or not you want to call it that. :) Explain to me this:

What is wrong with using a philosophy of what you think things SHOULD be like to derive practical methods for dealing with real life? What is wrong with using historical evidence that statism fails ever ****ing time as evidence that we shouldn't rely on it again and again?

I'm not naive enough to think my utopian dreams will ever come true. But I certainly have no trouble seeing evidence that "libertarian ideals" can come up with excellent results.

[Crinoline]

What do they do with it? Simple. Try to attain more wealth at the expense of everyone else.

In other words, hire tax lawyers to ensure they don't pay their fair share of taxes. Thereby robbing the IRS, which is public money, of millions.

Public Money? Hello Mcfly is anyone home? The money the IRS has is money that was CONFISCATED from other people, hardly what you would define as 'public money'. Unless you think that if I break into your house, steal 33% of your belongings that they would then become 'public belongings'. Just got to love those socialists.

[nehemiah]

Your "education costs are skyrocketing" bit is invalid thanks to the ubiquity of federal loans (also the primary cause of the skyrocketing...).

Also, my hope is that the current "crisis" in health care costs forces us to reconsider the apparently iron clad link between employment and health care. Why should my options for health care be tied to who the **** I work for?well - you still have to pay back loans, so it's valid.

and i don't see how your second paragraph is going to lower the cost burden on the consumer. please explain.

[nehemiah]

And your "more people fall than climb" is outright wrong. Sorry bub. Here's one rather nice article on it that you might want to re-read a few times:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006704okay, i guess i'm dumb, b/c that editorial mentions nothing about how many people descend the economic food chain.

please post the excerpt.

[nehemiah]

btw, you know how cato "experts" get paid right?

they get govt grants to fund their research.

1) they feed off the govt tittie.
2) they get more tittie milk as their research aligns w/ governmental goals

cato is a govt whore. seems pretty statist to be posted their stuff. :D

:dunno:

[anEinherjer]

Okay, I'll get to the other stuff in a minute, but WRONG AGAIN, nehe!

http://www.cato.org/about/about.html

How Cato Is Funded

In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding. Cato receives approximately 75 percent of its funding from individuals, with lesser amounts coming from foundations, corporations, and the sale of publications. The Cato Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation under Section 501(c) 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Cato's 2005 revenues were over $22.4 million, and it has approximately 95 full-time employees, 70 adjunct scholars, and 20 fellows, plus interns.

[nehemiah]

Okay, I'll get to the other stuff in a minute, but WRONG AGAIN, nehe!

http://www.cato.org/about/about.htmlo snap!

[JLB]

http://www.greden.com/StNixon.jpg

I'm making a comeback fellas!!

[anEinherjer]

The healthcare bit deserves a thread of its own, so let me gracefully bow out of answering that one here and give me some time to get together some links.

Census stats demonstrate easily that having the college degree lets you make X times the income than if you didn't (don't have the stat handy, sue me :)) and therefore you're more capable of paying back the loans. Since state schools are still available, my suggestion would be to forget the silly dreams of Vassar, Yale or RIT, and just go to UB instead. I did and look how smart I turned out! :D (you might think me going to a state school is hypocritical but I can just point to Joe's "pragmatism" approach to life as a good example to live by)

As for income inequality demagoguery:
A paper last fall by Mr. Solon observed that several of the newest estimates, including two from Messrs. Levine and Mazumder, suggest that it has become substantially easier to move from one economic class to another (as a 1997 Urban Institute study also concluded).

....

• Households with two full-time workers earn five times as much as households in which nobody works. Median income for households with two full-time earners was $85,517 in 2003 compared with $15,661 for households in which nobody worked. Median income for households with one worker who worked full-time all year was $60,852, compared with $28,704 for those who worked part-time for 26 weeks or less.

Wow! Did ya see that? Seems to me the best way to get someone out of poverty is to put them to work. :)

[nehemiah]

yeah, but you'll notice there is no discussion of how many go up and how many go down. and there is also no discussion of what the economic classes are.

i'm truly interested, so if you got something - post it. i will try to look from my side tomorrow. 2 meetings and holiday party today.

[gilchristfan]

Households with two full-time workers earn five times as much as households in which nobody works

I'm sorry, I just found that stat hilarious.

Its like saying people in big houses have more room than people in small houses.

[JoeMama]

Hey Joe, I still disagree with your "dropped the libertarian shtick" bit. You're still one of us whether or not you want to call it that. :) Explain to me this:

What is wrong with using a philosophy of what you think things SHOULD be like to derive practical methods for dealing with real life? What is wrong with using historical evidence that statism fails ever ****ing time as evidence that we shouldn't rely on it again and again?

I'm not naive enough to think my utopian dreams will ever come true. But I certainly have no trouble seeing evidence that "libertarian ideals" can come up with excellent results.

No, believe me.

I'm thru w/ the entire libertarian thing.

I have a litany of reasons -- but it's mostly painful things that have happened in the realm of my personal life.

Which I'd rather not discuss.

[35Pete]

From your article anEin. And specifically addressed to SweetLeePlaya'

Rawls assumed society can be a cooperative venture for mutual advantage—a positive sum game.[12] Society is not, or at least need not, be like poker in that respect. Poker is zero-sum. The only way to win is at the expense of other players. Some of us want to see—to define—profit as coming at other people’s expense, despite the ubiquity of consensual transactions where both parties go away having gotten what they came for. Robert Axelrod says he puts students in game situations, instructing them "that it should not matter to them whether they score a little better or a little worse than the other player, so long as they collect as many dollars for themselves as possible. These instructions simply do not work. The students look for a standard of comparison to see if they are doing well or poorly." Moreover, "people tend to resort to the standard of comparison that they have available—and this standard is often the success of the other player relative to their own success. This standard leads to envy. And envy leads to attempts to rectify any advantage the other player has attained." Axelrod concludes that, "Asking how well you are doing compared to how well the other player is doing is not a good standard unless your goal is to destroy the other player."[13] Is Axelrod exaggerating? Perhaps. Yet he has a point. Sometimes we care about inequality because we are envious, but envy is not a good reason to care.

[nehemiah]

keeping up with the jones' is a tried and true cliche for a reason, pete.

[35Pete]

keeping up with the jones' is a tried and true cliche for a reason, pete.

It's a myth that politically necessary for one side of the political aisle. True some do, but some does not make for a generalization.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Public Money? Hello Mcfly is anyone home? The money the IRS has is money that was CONFISCATED from other people, hardly what you would define as 'public money'. Unless you think that if I break into your house, steal 33% of your belongings that they would then become 'public belongings'. Just got to love those socialists.

No you are wrong. You pay a fee for access to the American market. The money is owed. You don't like it? Don't do business in a highly industrialized nation.

Like I said. Nothing personal. It's just business.

[TheGoodShepherd]

OK, but can someone show me some real evidence that we have lost the middle class?

I mean, isn't home ownership at an all time high? Who are buying all of these houses? Its certainly not just the rich.

Tons of post WWII baby boomer houses were 2 or 3 bedroom, one bath houses, and that era was considered prosperous. Do they even build 2 bedroom houses anymore?

SUV sales dropped in the last few years, but that was due to gas prices. On the other hand, people certainly seem to be driving newer cars than when I was growing up. I grew up in a blue collar/some white collar/some self employed suburbia neighborhood, and most drove rust buckets (not hard to do in WNY, I agree). But few were buying new cars every 2-3 years. Most do now, however.

I've already pointed to stock ownership of households, i.e. the middle class. These are mostly retirement accounts. When Social Security was created, and why it continued, was because most people didn't have any type of retirement.

You can point to the number of uninsured as an example, but isn't that caused more by the rise of medical costs - the dance between the medical industry and the insurance industry? Or is it evidence that we are losing the middle class? I think its the former, myself.

Where did the middle class go? Did it go anywhere?


You don't think the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer?

[TheGoodShepherd]

According to the IRS, the average income of all households in 2000 was $42,700, while the 13,400 households at the top had an average income of $24 million or 560 times the average. In 1970, the top group had 100 times the average.

Even when you just adjust for inflation for each dollar of income in 1970 the top 13,400 households had 4 additional dollars plus a dime to spend in 2000, the average household in the bottom 99 per cent had only eight cents more per dollar.

Tell me Gil. Why is it that the only group that had significant income gains over 30 years went to the top group?

[35Pete]

According to the IRS, the average income of all households in 2000 was $42,700, while the 13,400 households at the top had an average income of $24 million or 560 times the average. In 1970, the top group had 100 times the average.

Even when you just adjust for inflation for each dollar of income in 1970 the top 13,400 households had 4 additional dollars plus a dime to spend in 2000, the average household in the bottom 99 per cent had only eight cents more per dollar.

Tell me Gil. Why is it that the only group that had significant income gains over 30 years went to the top group?

What's the percentage gain for each? If they are both say 15% then that makes perfect sense.

[35Pete]

You shouldn't be concerned about the gap. It's irrelevant. That's the politics of envy and envy is perhaps among the dirtiest and ugliest of emotions.

Are the poor starving in the streets? Hmm?

[nehemiah]

Are the poor starving in the streets? Hmm?yes.

[anEinherjer]

You don't think the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer?

****'s sake, Chimpster, I've been saying that the entire time. The poorer are most certainly not getting poorer.

[35Pete]

****'s sake, Chimpster, I've been saying that the entire time. The poorer are most certainly not getting poorer.

You know how it is anEin. "You ain't gettin rich if someone's not gettin' poorer".

Gotta take food out of people's mouths in order to become wealthy. You know that.

[gilchristfan]

According to the IRS, the average income of all households in 2000 was $42,700, while the 13,400 households at the top had an average income of $24 million or 560 times the average. In 1970, the top group had 100 times the average.

Even when you just adjust for inflation for each dollar of income in 1970 the top 13,400 households had 4 additional dollars plus a dime to spend in 2000, the average household in the bottom 99 per cent had only eight cents more per dollar.

Tell me Gil. Why is it that the only group that had significant income gains over 30 years went to the top group?

you never quoted what the average household income was in 1970.

[TheGoodShepherd]

What's the percentage gain for each? If they are both say 15% then that makes perfect sense.

15%? Does "560 times" sound like 15% per cent to you? Dumb question.

[TheGoodShepherd]

you never quoted what the average household income was in 1970.

Well it becomes even clearer with a simple comparision of income growth between 1970 and 2000. How did the top one hundredth of 1 per cent compare to the bottom 99 per cent? For each dollar additonal income going to each of those in the bottom 99 per cent of Americans the richest each averaged $7,500.

[TheGoodShepherd]

****'s sake, Chimpster, I've been saying that the entire time. The poorer are most certainly not getting poorer.

Sure you can believe that. But IRS and National Income and Product Accounts ( the most comprehensive economic data the govt collects, and on taxes) figures disagree with you.

Either offer substantiation for your claim. Or don't.


Seriosuly, if you guys didn't even know what the NIPA is, I have no reason to waste my time educating you.

[35Pete]

15%? Does "560 times" sound like 15% per cent to you? Dumb question.

Mathematically challenged. LOL

What was the rate of growth of their incomes? I could care less if someone makes 500 times what I do.

I don't let jealosy and envy guide my daily thoughts.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Mathematically challenged. LOL

What was the rate of growth of their incomes? I could care less if someone makes 500 times what I do.

I don't let jealosy and envy guide my daily thoughts.

And the point, once again, goes over your head.

[35Pete]

They are not getting poorer Chimp. An increase in the difference of incomes is NOT a metric for whether someone is getting poorer.

Mr. Productive makes 300,000 a year. In five years his income increases 25% to 375,000 a year.

Mr. Suck The Nipple of Government Lazy Ass Worthless Slob makes $10,000. In five years his income increases 25% to 12,500.

They both increased say about the same rate. But the difference in the intial part is 300-10 = 290K.

After 5 years the difference is 375-12.5 = 362.5K.

Did Mr. Lazy Slob get poorer?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Gil. For the bottom 99 per cent, in 1970, average income was 32,763 (adjusted for inflation). By 2000, it grew to $35,473. An increase of $2,710.

For the top 1/100 of 1 per cent, the average in 1970 was 3,461,285 in 1970. In 2000 it reached $23,969,767. An increase of 20,328,482.

You're telling me there is no disproportionate increase?

Every single accounting entity with authority in the US, own number's show the increasing disparity. It is evident. It is bare. It is laid out for all to see.

I think it's about time we ask why this is happening. Because that's the most important question.

[TheGoodShepherd]

They are not getting poorer Chimp. An increase in the difference of incomes is NOT a metric for whether someone is getting poorer.

Mr. Productive makes 300,000 a year. In five years his income increases 25% to 375,000 a year.

Mr. Suck The Nipple of Government Lazy Ass Worthless Slob makes $10,000. In five years his income increases 25% to 12,500.

They both increased say about the same rate. But the difference in the intial part is 300-10 = 290K.

After 5 years the difference is 375-12.5 = 362.5K.

Did Mr. Lazy Slob get poorer?


This is not a serious post and I will not respond to it.

[35Pete]

This is not a serious post and I will not respond to it.

Because you can't. Because you judge getting poorer based on the gap, not on real dollar values.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Because you can't. Because you judge getting poorer based on the gap, not on real dollar values.

No it's because you don't use real examples. And you use labels that would never in a million years be accepted for a high school paper like "fat lazy slob."

Sorry, pete. I'm not playing dumb down the conversation with you today.

Either be serious. Or get lost.

[35Pete]

No it's because you don't use real examples. And you use labels that would never in a million years be accepted for a high school paper like "fat lazy slob."

Sorry, pete. I'm not playing dumb down the conversation with you today.

Either be serious. Or get lost.

Would "Mr. Quasi-Welfare King" be more palatable?

And yes, they are real world.

Suppose 5 years ago I made say...75K. (My actual salary is no ones business but I'll pick a nice neat number to start) And my raises were modest. Say 3.5%, 4.3%, 4.6%, 5%, 3.7%

Someone in the factory makes $10/hour and there are 2080 workhours in a year. So that's $20,800 a year. He gets the same raises.

The intial difference is 75,000 - 20800 = 54,200

Year one.

Pete- 77625
Mr QWK. -21528

Year Two

Pete- 77625
Mr QWK. -22454

Year Three

Pete- 80963
Mr QWK. -23487

Year Four

Pete- 88922
Mr QWK. -24661

Year Five

Pete- 92212
Mr QWK. -25573

The final difference is 92212-25573 = 66,638

The ratio of differences is 66638/54200= 1.23:1

Did he get poorer? Is that what you are saying?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Would "Mr. Quasi-Welfare King" be more palatable?

And yes, they are real world.

Suppose 5 years ago I made say...75K. (My actual salary is no ones business but I'll pick a nice neat number to start) And my raises were modest. Say 3.5%, 4.3%, 4.6%, 5%, 3.7%

Someone in the factory makes $10/hour and there are 2080 workhours in a year. So that's $20,800 a year. He gets the same raises.

The intial difference is 75,000 - 20800 = 54,200

Year one.

Pete- 77625
Mr QWK. -21528

Year Two

Pete- 77625
Mr QWK. -22454

Year Three

Pete- 80963
Mr QWK. -23487

Year Four

Pete- 88922
Mr QWK. -24661

Year Five

Pete- 92212
Mr QWK. -25573

The final difference is 92212-25573 = 66,638

The ratio of differences is 66638/54200= 1.23:1

Did he get poorer? Is that what you are saying?



Not a serious post. Not a real example. It's not anything. I told you. I'm not with you today. Sorry. You can talk about this with someone else. Just not me.


However, I am open to debate with anyone else.

[35Pete]

Not a serious post. Not a real example. It's nothing.

I'd say that IS EXACTLY a pretty real example.

Now you are dodging.

[TheGoodShepherd]

I'd say that IS EXACTLY a pretty real example.

Now you are dodging.

No sorry, it's far from serious. And even farther from a real example.

I'm using real figures frm the IRS and NIPA and you're using insulting labels and inventions.


See ya.

[shiva2999]

Isn't it interesting how one side can argue rationally and logically and the other side uses anger and insults?

And yet they're the ones that go "boo hoo hoo why can't we have a reasoned discussion in here?"

Remember the right-wingers mantra...

"THEY are trying to STEAL MY MONEY!"

It's their bottom line.

[35Pete]

Isn't it interesting how one side can argue rationally and logically and the other side uses anger and insults?

And yet they're the ones that go "boo hoo hoo why can't we have a reasoned discussion in here?"

Remember the right-wingers mantra...

"THEY are trying to STEAL MY MONEY!"

It's their bottom line.

I'm not insulting you guys.

I'm just making fun of the little guy. Like we non-left wingers are supposed to do.

Fact is that I gave an excellent example. It appears to me that Chimp is using the "gap" as an indication that the poor are getting poorer. That's not even semantics. That's plain old falsehood.

[JLB]

Merry Christmas guys who wants to be scrooge?

[anEinherjer]

Chimp cannot prove that the poor are getting poorer because it isn't true. That's okay though, he'll resort to changing the topic and avoiding the questions he can't answer. That's all he ever does.

[anEinherjer]

Here's an interesting (if a little older) article from Reason. The poor are not getting poorer. LIE.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34961.html

Kenny also observes that what he calls "non-necessary consumption" has been increasing for the world poorest, too. For example, while the bottom 20 percent and the top 20 percent of the world's population both increased their beer drinking between 1950 and 1990, the bottom quintile's consumption grew five times as fast.

If this isn't cause to celebrate, I don't know what is (watch the statists whine that it's addiction, they're marketing it to po' folks to steal their money blah blah blah).

[anEinherjer]

This is simply amazing, and you lefties look right past it on your way to the protest meetings:

So why is the quality of life for the world's poorest people improving, and in fact converging toward levels found in the richer countries? Because improvements become cheaper over time. Kenny notes: "Broadly, the results suggest that it takes one-tenth the income to achieve the same life expectancy in 1999 as it took in 1870.

Simply amazing.

[K-Gun]

Here's an interesting (if a little older) article from Reason. The poor are not getting poorer. LIE.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34961.html



If this isn't cause to celebrate, I don't know what is (watch the statists whine that it's addiction, they're marketing it to po' folks to steal their money blah blah blah).

You should have read Germinal by Emile Zola. Perhaps you've seen the moive with Gerard Depardoooo?

[anEinherjer]

Why should I have read it? I haven't, but I'm curious what you're trying to tell me.

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

Class warfare is ugly. It's always been a dirty word. I wouldn't be too proud of that statement. Shows me that you live a life of envy and jealosy. If you can't achieve, just take from those that do. That's pretty much what you are advocating.

Not jealousy, compassion.

I'm likely to be a millionaire soon, and I'll feel exactly the same way.

[35Pete]

Not jealousy, compassion.

I'm likely to be a millionaire soon, and I'll feel exactly the same way.

Yeah right.

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

Class warfare is pointless. Where in history does "the gap" become the cause of revolt? Noone has been able to answer my question: Why is a large gap between rich and poor, in and of itself, a bad thing?

Pete: I like your latest post.

Why is a large gap between the rich and the poor a bad thing? I think that's a question so flawed and obvious that it really doesn't need to be answered. It just sucks.

As far as history, look to Armati, Khazakstan.

[K-Gun]

Why should I have read it? I haven't, but I'm curious what you're trying to tell me.

Well, it is a classic of Western Literature. It would have taught you why those in poverty spend their money frivolously, and on drink. It's a pretty damn good movie too, if you can stand subtitles.

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

Yeah right.

LOL!

Jealousy is a bitch.

Here's the sweetest part. I don't have to lift a finger to get it.

I'll be spending my days fine tuning my body and blowdrying my hair.

[35Pete]

LOL!

Jealousy is a bitch.

Here's the sweetest part. I don't have to lift a finger to get it.

I'll be spending my days fine tuning my body and blowdrying my hair.

That's something to be proud of?

You don't strike me to be one that has the intelligence to be a self-made millionaire. Nothing personal. Just that your posts are well...so... simple and sophmoric in nature.

[35Pete]

Why is a large gap between the rich and the poor a bad thing? I think that's a question so flawed and obvious that it really doesn't need to be answered. It just sucks.

As far as history, look to Armati, Khazakstan.

Why is it so obvious and flawed? There are losers in this world. There really are.

Let them eat cake.

[JLB]

Why is it so obvious and flawed? There are losers in this world. There really are.

Let them eat cake.

Or bake it lol.

[Green Lantern]

You shouldn't be concerned about the gap. It's irrelevant. That's the politics of envy and envy is perhaps among the dirtiest and ugliest of emotions.

Are the poor starving in the streets? Hmm?

Pete,

Have you considered the possibility that just as it was in the 1900's-1920's when the robberbaron's took advantage of an economic system that was not set up to prevent their abuses that today the economic system is not set up to deal with the changing reality on the ground?

If that is the case, as is the defense of the ENRON, et al. defendants--namely that accounting rules about what to report and how to categorize things is incomplete given the changing realities of the new multi-national conglomerate shell-game game-- then years from now people will look back at these excesses and raping of certain classes/groups and talk about how the government was too slow to change the rules to fit the new reality...

And they will, like you do right now, think they are so much more on the ball than those stupid, ignorant, backward people of the turn of the century.

Do you think it's possible?

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

That's something to be proud of?

You don't strike me to be one that has the intelligence to be a self-made millionaire. Nothing personal. Just that your posts are well...so... simple and sophmoric in nature.

Ziiiiing.

Anyways, that's the best part about it; I'm not even earning it.

Can I buy you?

[35Pete]

Pete,

Have you considered the possibility that just as it was in the 1900's-1920's when the robberbaron's took advantage of an economic system that was not set up to prevent their abuses that today the economic system is not set up to deal with the changing reality on the ground?

If that is the case, as is the defense of the ENRON, et al. defendants--namely that accounting rules about what to report and how to categorize things is incomplete given the changing realities of the new multi-national conglomerate shell-game game-- then years from now people will look back at these excesses and raping of certain classes/groups and talk about how the government was too slow to change the rules to fit the new reality...

And they will, like you do right now, think they are so much more on the ball than those stupid, ignorant, backward people of the turn of the century.

Do you think it's possible?

Irrelevant.

Aqua. I'm upper middle class. Not rich. But I defend the right of my fellow Americans to accumulate wealth. Plain and simple. The gap matters not. I don't care if people make more than I do. The question that is germaine is "Are the poor worse off than yesteday"? I defy one to prove that so. Only in America are the poor fat. Sorry they can't afford the vehicle that I drive. Or the vacations that I take. Or whatever. They haven't EARNED it. The idea that egelatarianism is a good thing is repulsive to me. There are many that make more than I because they deserve it. The poor are not victims. They are non-producers. That's a huge difference.

There are no more robber barons. Everyone has a chance. And if you sit on your ass and do nothing then you deserve your fate. Tough upbringing? Cry me a river. Hunger is a motivator aqua. It really is. Let's be decent people and let them feel that. It will motivate them and maybe then they'll get off their asses. And if they don't? Well. Tough.

[nehemiah]

That's something to be proud of?

You don't strike me to be one that has the intelligence to be a self-made millionaire. Nothing personal. Just that your posts are well...so... simple and sophmoric in nature.meow.

[35Pete]

Ziiiiing.

Anyways, that's the best part about it; I'm not even earning it.

Can I buy you?

So what you are saying is that you are white trash waiting out an inheritance? Money and people are not the factor to me. I respect the social worker making enough to get by more than I do the lucky sperm anyday of the week.

It's not what you have. It's how you earned it.

Intelligence and hard work mean something. Being lucky doesn't.

What are you trying to assuage your guilt?

[Mouldsie]

lol
PETE!

"It's not what you have."

I never thought I'd hear you say that

[K-Gun]

Ziiiiing.

Anyways, that's the best part about it; I'm not even earning it.

Can I buy you?

you can buy me, season tickets

[35Pete]

lol
PETE!

"It's not what you have."

I never thought I'd hear you say that

You haven't been paying attention.

I make enough to own a BMW or better. Why do I have a pickup?

Answer: It's because it's what I like. And I could give a royal shit about what other people think. It's not about money. It's about effort, smarts, and hard work. I live very frugally. Why? Because I don't need image. Many of my friends don't earn a lot but they never bitch. For that I say kudos. Live your life and don't whine. And for the flashy ones, or those that brag about an inheritance coming their way, I say piss off. Material doesn't make you better. But that doesn't mean you don't have the right to keep what you earn.

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

lol
PETE!

"It's not what you have."

I never thought I'd hear you say that

Pete's a fun guy to subtly prod.

I guess when the possibility arose that I may eventually have more than him did wealth become irrelevant.

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

you can buy me, season tickets

We'll see.

I really want to buy a person.

[Mouldsie]

All we need is love and beer

[35Pete]

Pete's a fun guy to subtly prod.

I guess when the possibility arose that I may eventually have more than him did wealth become irrelevant.

See your thinking is so jaded I am stunned.

Let people keep their wealth. Anyone self-sufficient is A-OK in my book. Anyone receiving government assistance is in a lower social class than me. Unless they are permanently disabled and cannot possibly help themselves.

The serfs so to speak. The bottom of the social ladder. And the sad thing is that they have every chance available to get out of that class. That's why I am disgusted with them. Because they can but they won't.

[SweetLee8 3PlayaWha?]

See your thinking is so jaded I am stunned.

Let people keep their wealth. Anyone self-sufficient is A-OK in my book. Anyone receiving government assistance is in a lower social class than me. Unless they are permanently disabled and cannot possibly help themselves.

The serfs so to speak. The bottom of the social ladder. And the sad thing is that they have every chance available to get out of that class. That's why I am disgusted with them. Because they can but they won't.

Perhaps many can climb out of sheer poverty, but certainly most cannot rise much higher than middle class.

It's just not feasable.

That being said, who should be the focal point of government policies? The masses that will never have the chance to be wealthy, the wealthy, or nobody.

I would personally like to institute policies to help the poor enter the middle class and the middle class itself.

To each their own. I think you'll find in the long run that if this isn't being done, the public will eventually demand it.