Evolution of incomes of people in USA from 1949 to 2012

[kilgram]

Just I am going to post the graph. I don't have comments about it. The graph explains everything... Ah yes, one thing I have to say... Reagan is the greatest president...

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fIM_DfXKCXGRmJ3p87EiUlPh0pw=/750x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/1400916/BuX2fpzIAAAZc77.0.0.jpg
http://Source: Vox

But I suppose that Liberals/Libertarians won't have any problem with those graphs. They support those changes. They hate equality.

Edit: fix link. (http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/25/6843509/income-distribution-recoveries-pavlina-tcherneva)

[Mister D]

Just I am going to post the graph. I don't have comments about it. The graph explains everything... Ah yes, one thing I have to say... Reagan is the greatest president...

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fIM_DfXKCXGRmJ3p87EiUlPh0pw=/750x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/1400916/BuX2fpzIAAAZc77.0.0.jpg
http://Source: Vox

But I suppose that Liberals/Libertarians won't have any problem with those graphs. They support those changes. They hate equality.

I don't hate it. I just think it's dangerous nonsense.

[Chris]

Agree^^. I'm libertarian and do not hate equality. In fact I endorse rule of law which implies equality before the law, iow, government must treat all equally, not favor some to the cost of others, which means it would be wrong for it to try and equalize incomes.

[Mac-7]

Just I am going to post the graph. I don't have comments about it. The graph explains everything... Ah yes, one thing I have to say... Reagan is the greatest president...

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fIM_DfXKCXGRmJ3p87EiUlPh0pw=/750x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/1400916/BuX2fpzIAAAZc77.0.0.jpg
http://Source: Vox

But I suppose that Liberals/Libertarians won't have any problem with those graphs. They support those changes. They hate equality.

Do you have an explanation for the shift in incomes?

[Chris]

It would be nice to have a working link to the chart.

According to this link (http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/sep-25-one-chart-about-income-inequality-that-will-make-your-blood-boil-2124663/#post32263172): "Tcherneva, the chart's author, said on Twitter that fiscal and tax policies play a big role in the growing income gap, but the dynamic is too complicated to blame solely Reaganomics for the sudden shift in the 1980s. She drew on data from Emmanuel Saez, Thomas Piketty and the National Bureau of Economic Research to formulate the chart."

So that leaves out free-market capitalism as the cause and indicates it's government policies and not just kilgram's beloved Reagan.

[Peter1469]

Income inequality is entirely meaningless in a system under a fractional reserve banking system. Bright people (high IQ) would ask how are the poor doing. Every nation has poor. Some more than others. Look around the world and then come back to the USA. Right, they all have smart phones, high speed Internet, and nice cars.

Piketty is a fraud- a well scoured fraud, but a fraud nevertheless.

[kilgram]

Income inequality is entirely meaningless in a system under a fractional reserve banking system. Bright people (high IQ) would ask how are the poor doing. Every nation has poor. Some more than others. Look around the world and then come back to the USA. Right, they all have smart phones, high speed Internet, and nice cars.

Piketty is a fraud- a well scoured fraud, but a fraud nevertheless.
Income inequality is not meaningless. Or do you think that luxury can be kept forever? Do you think that low classes can afford mobiles of last generation, Internet, cars...? No, they cannot. Obviously, the difference until now was not so great. But next generations will suffer a lot from this income inequality. Obviously income inequality is negative, absolutely negative. A road to third world systems.

[Peter1469]

Income inequality is not meaningless. Or do you think that luxury can be kept forever? Do you think that low classes can afford mobiles of last generation, Internet, cars...? No, they cannot. Obviously, the difference until now was not so great. But next generations will suffer a lot from this income inequality. Obviously income inequality is negative, absolutely negative. A road to third world systems.

You are always backwards. Maybe it is because you think the economy is a fix pie. If the rich take 90% of the pie the poor get 10% of the pie.

That is not reality. The world doesn't work that way. If the poor near me have high speed internet, a smart phone, and a better car than mine I don't give a shit that I make 200X more than them. They are doing just fine.

[Chris]

The source is vox, more specifically, http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/25/6843509/income-distribution-recoveries-pavlina-tcherneva


Here's another discussion from http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/09/remarkable-chart-ive-seen-time-rich-gain-ground-every-us-expansion.html. It continues the theme I posted above: "Tcherneva, the chart's author, said on Twitter that fiscal and tax policies play a big role in the growing income gap...."


If you had any doubt the US economy had been rearchitected to favor the haves versus the have-lesses, this chart by Pavlina Tcherneva should settle it. Justin Wolfers, hardly a raging liberal, just tweeted:

[snip tweet]

While the overall trend is dramatic enough, you can also see two major shifts: the big change with the Reagan era, with its higher-income and capital-favoring tax cuts, of the top 10% suddenly reaping vastly disproportionate gains relative to the rest of the distribution.

The Bush Administration, with even more changed in taxes that shifted income to the rich, is another big ratchet. But arguably the most dramatic change is under the Obama Adminstration, where the top echelon’s gains came in part at the expense of everyone else.

Matt Stoller was early to notice this change. As he wrote in 2012:



A better puzzle to wrestle with is why President Obama is able to continue to speak as if his administration has not presided over a significant expansion of income redistribution upward. The data on inequality shows that his policies are not incrementally better than those of his predecessor, or that we’re making progress too slowly, as liberal Democrats like to argue. It doesn’t even show that the outcome is the same as Bush’s. No, look at this table, from Emmanuel Saez (h/t Ian Welsh). Check out those two red circles I added.

http://i.snag.gy/KBKSf.jpg

Yup, under Bush, the 1% captured a disproportionate share of the income gains from the Bush boom of 2002-2007. They got 65 cents of every dollar created in that boom, up 20 cents from when Clinton was President. Under Obama, the 1% got 93 cents of every dollar created in that boom. That’s not only more than under Bush, up 28 cents. In the transition from Bush to Obama, inequality got worse, faster, than under the transition from Clinton to Bush. Obama accelerated the growth of inequality.

...

[Mac-7]

Income inequality is not meaningless. Or do you think that luxury can be kept forever? Do you think that low classes can afford mobiles of last generation, Internet, cars...? No, they cannot. Obviously, the difference until now was not so great. But next generations will suffer a lot from this income inequality. Obviously income inequality is negative, absolutely negative. A road to third world systems.

I'll ask you again.

do you have an explanation for the cause of income inequality?

[kilgram]

You are always backwards. Maybe it is because you think the economy is a fix pie. If the rich take 90% of the pie the poor get 10% of the pie.

That is not reality. The world doesn't work that way. If the poor near me have high speed internet, a smart phone, and a better car than mine I don't give a shit that I make 200X more than them. They are doing just fine.
Well... Obviously that is not true.

Considering that we know that the adquisitive power is lower than before... always talking of low and middle classes. Then, obviously the gap is a problem.

[kilgram]

I'll ask you again.

do you have an explanation for the cause of income inequality?
I am a lousy foreigner. I don't know anything.

[Green Arrow]

Income inequality is entirely meaningless in a system under a fractional reserve banking system. Bright people (high IQ) would ask how are the poor doing. Every nation has poor. Some more than others. Look around the world and then come back to the USA. Right, they all have smart phones, high speed Internet, and nice cars.

Piketty is a fraud- a well scoured fraud, but a fraud nevertheless.

And yet, our cost of living is going up. Yes, I have a smart phone - $60 a month. Yes, I have high-speed internet - $40 a month. My car is a '99 Ford Taurus and I don't know a whole lot of poor people with "nice" cars.

Everything you mentioned is actually fairly cheap these days. It's being able to buy or rent a home or apartment and the rising cost of food that is beginning to get out of hand. Then you factor in the gas cost to fill up those "nice" cars so you can get to your job that is steadily paying you less and less despite the fact that productivity is going up and up. On and on it goes.

Are the inequalitymongers like Piketty, the Democrats, and Reich completely right about everything relating to inequality? No, of course not, but that doesn't mean inequality isn't still a serious issue, and it isn't even really a solely socialist issue anymore, but very much a capitalist one.

[Mac-7]

I am a lousy foreigner. I don't know anything.

You seem to think you know a lot about my country since you're posting this thread.

its not as if I plucked you out of a government subsidized hooch in some little foreign country.

you came here and are telling us, remember?

i just thought it might be interesting to hear your pitch for socialism.

[kilgram]

You seem to think you know a lot about my country since you're posting this thread.

its not as if I plucked you out of a government subsidized hooch in some little foreign country.

you came here and are telling us, remember?

i just thought it might be interesting to hear your pitch for socialism.
I am not going to give opinion. Only data.

http://www.alternet.org/files/the_six_economic_facts1.jpg
- Red line: Productivity
- Blue line: wages

8970

An article of NY Times of 2011, title: Tax Burden for Most Americans is lower than in the 1980's (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).

[Mac-7]

I am not going to give opinion. Only data.

http://www.alternet.org/files/the_six_economic_facts1.jpg
- Red line: Productivity
- Blue line: wages

8970

An article of NY Times of 2011, title: Tax Burden for Most Americans is lower than in the 1980's (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).

ok.

i guess we can all use a little data once in a while, as long as its low calorie instead of that fattening stuff.

[kilgram]

ok.

i guess we can all use a little data once in a while, as long as its low calorie instead of that fattening stuff.
I am an ignorant, do you remember?

I prefer that you make the guess.

[Mac-7]

I am an ignorant, do you remember?

To be honest I had forgotten you are a foreigner when you posted this op.

maybe I should have remembered but I didn't.

since you have nothing better to do than worry about Americans I assumed you were one of us.

besides I think its a good idea for you to stick with your data only policy and leave the heavy thinking to Americans.

[kilgram]

To be honest I had forgotten you are a foreigner when you posted this op.

maybe I should have remembered but I didn't.

since you have nothing better to do than worry about Americans I assumed you were one of us.

besides I think its a good idea for you to stick with your data only policy and leave the heavy thinking to Americans.
And now you come with xenophoby.

I can explain you why is that happening. But, I think that you should think about it, and try to extract the consequences.

[donttread]

Agree^^. I'm libertarian and do not hate equality. In fact I endorse rule of law which implies equality before the law, iow, government must treat all equally, not favor some to the cost of others, which means it would be wrong for it to try and equalize incomes.

Not economic equality, economic equity. Big difference and because of the ever increasing tilt of the table we have neither

[Mac-7]

And now you come with xenophoby.

I can explain you why is that happening. But, I think that you should think about it, and try to extract the consequences.

You admitted to being a lousy foreigner twice.

so its a little late to cry in your beer about that.

they do have beer in your quaint little outpost don't they?

as far as your opinion that's all it is.

your bid to spread the socialist message.

but having been reminded that you are an outsider I'm no longer interested in your point of view.

[donttread]

You admitted to being a lousy foreigner twice.

so its a little late to cry in beer about that.

they do have beer in your quaint little outpost don't they?

as far as your opinion that's all it is.

your bid to spread the socialist message.

but having been reminded that you are an outsider I'm no longer interested in your point of view.

He admitted to being a "lousy" foreigner? Was he ever a "good" foreigner before he went lousy?

[Codename Section]

You admitted to being a lousy foreigner twice.

so its a little late to cry in beer about that.

they do have beer in your quaint little outpost don't they?

as far as your opinion that's all it is.

your bid to spread the socialist message.

but having been reminded that you are an outsider I'm no longer interested in your point of view.
Mac-7

this is an international forum, and as you've pointed out yourself in the many posts about nebulous CIA activity our actions have consequences across the globe. kilgram is entitled to his opinion.

You're free to ignore him, you're not free to insult him.

[Mac-7]

@Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014)

this is an international forum, and as you've pointed out yourself in the many posts about nebulous CIA activity our actions have consequences across the globe. @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) is entitled to his opinion.

You're free to ignore him, you're not free to insult him.

I never said kilogram couldn't speak.

i gave him two opportunities to present his socialist message but all he wanted to discuss was his foreignness.

ultimately I don't care what foreigners think about my country and his silence on subjects like this is appropriate.

[Codename Section]

I never said kilogram couldn't speak.

i gave him two opportunities to present his socialist message but all he wanted to discuss was his foreignness.

but ultimately I don't care what foreigners think about my country and his silence on subjects like this is appropriate.

Sure you care or you wouldn't fight with him. I don't talk to girls I have no interest in.

[Mac-7]

Sure you care or you wouldn't fight with him. I don't talk to girls I have no interest in.

He's a girl?

not a lesbian I hope.

and not French or Dutch cause they don't bathe every day.

[Chris]

I am not going to give opinion. Only data.

http://www.alternet.org/files/the_six_economic_facts1.jpg
- Red line: Productivity
- Blue line: wages

8970

An article of NY Times of 2011, title: Tax Burden for Most Americans is lower than in the 1980's (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).



I appreciate the data because it shows how the donkephant (that's American English portmanteau for our duopoly) is gutting the middle and poor classes to enrich the rich.

[Chris]

I never said kilogram couldn't speak.

i gave him two opportunities to present his socialist message but all he wanted to discuss was his foreignness.

ultimately I don't care what foreigners think about my country and his silence on subjects like this is appropriate.


If you actually paid attention you'd know he's not a socialist but a communist.

What, is socialist just a meaningless pejorative to you?

[kilgram]

I appreciate the data because it shows how the donkephant (that's American English portmanteau for our duopoly) is gutting the middle and poor classes to enrich the rich.
What is donkephant?

According to urban dictionary would be some kind of consequence of the bipartisanship. Am I right?

[Cigar]

Just I am going to post the graph. I don't have comments about it. The graph explains everything... Ah yes, one thing I have to say... Reagan is the greatest president...

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fIM_DfXKCXGRmJ3p87EiUlPh0pw=/750x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/1400916/BuX2fpzIAAAZc77.0.0.jpg
http://Source: Vox

But I suppose that Liberals/Libertarians won't have any problem with those graphs. They support those changes. They hate equality.


Careful ... Data isn't welcomed around here. :laugh:

[kilgram]

If you actually paid attention you'd know he's not a socialist but a communist.

What, is socialist just a meaningless pejorative to you?
I believe it is. Because he called socialist to someone else, and I believe that person is pretty conservative just that person does not share his opinions.

And going to topic. It is a problem that every country is suffering, less or more. Spain for example is the one who is suffering most this redistribution of the wealth to the richest of the country.

And about the reasons of this, is interesting to discuss it. One of the main reasons behind this are the policies that are done to favour the rich. For example, the wealthy has many reductions to prevent to pay taxes, and many other policies that benefit them, but only them. And usually harm the middle class (Small and middle business and liberal professions) and the lower class (workers).

[kilgram]

He's a girl?

not a lesbian I hope.

and not French or Dutch cause they don't bathe every day.
I like men who mistreat me. I love strong guys to fuck my ass. And I am French guy who baths every week :) YOu will love me, I hope.

[Chris]

I believe it is. Because he called socialist to someone else, and I believe that person is pretty conservative just that person does not share his opinions.

And going to topic. It is a problem that every country is suffering, less or more. Spain for example is the one who is suffering most this redistribution of the wealth to the richest of the country.

And about the reasons of this, is interesting to discuss it. One of the main reasons behind this are the policies that are done to favour the rich. For example, the wealthy has many reductions to prevent to pay taxes, and many other policies that benefit them, but only them. And usually harm the middle class (Small and middle business and liberal professions) and the lower class (workers).


Indeed, policies that take from the middle class and give to the poor so they can buy from the rich. What a racket!

[kilgram]

Indeed, policies that take from the middle class and give to the poor so they can buy from the rich. What a racket!
The poors also lose adquisitive power. Everybody except the rich are getting benefit from it.

[Chris]

The poors also lose adquisitive power. Everybody except the rich are getting benefit from it.

Of course, they're made dependent on government.

[Codename Section]

Mac-7 and Kilgram--take it somewhere else. No one wants to read it

[The Buck Stops Here]

The numbers don't lie.

One thing you can always look at when a President is bragging about jobs is the average wage of the middle class. It tells you what type of jobs are being created. Unfortunately this president is claiming job growth, which is true. But it is low paying minimum wage jobs along with part time employment. The curent middle class wages are down substantially, the claim of jobs created is a bit of a redherring.

[Peter1469]

And yet, our cost of living is going up. Yes, I have a smart phone - $60 a month. Yes, I have high-speed internet - $40 a month. My car is a '99 Ford Taurus and I don't know a whole lot of poor people with "nice" cars.

Everything you mentioned is actually fairly cheap these days. It's being able to buy or rent a home or apartment and the rising cost of food that is beginning to get out of hand. Then you factor in the gas cost to fill up those "nice" cars so you can get to your job that is steadily paying you less and less despite the fact that productivity is going up and up. On and on it goes.

Are the inequalitymongers like Piketty, the Democrats, and Reich completely right about everything relating to inequality? No, of course not, but that doesn't mean inequality isn't still a serious issue, and it isn't even really a solely socialist issue anymore, but very much a capitalist one.

A large part of what has caused the rise in income inequality is the decline of the C Corporation model. So that puts that income onto personal income, making a spike in the income of corporate owners. But it isn't really a sign of income inequality.

[Peter1469]

You admitted to being a lousy foreigner twice.

so its a little late to cry in your beer about that.

they do have beer in your quaint little outpost don't they?

as far as your opinion that's all it is.

your bid to spread the socialist message.

but having been reminded that you are an outsider I'm no longer interested in your point of view.

Warning: Do not post in bad faith and don't harass members. If you aren't interested in another member's opinion then the best policy is not to address that member at all.

[Mac-7]

Warning: Do not post in bad faith and don't harass members. If you aren't interested in another member's opinion then the best policy is not to address that member at all.

I asked him politely for his opinion.

[donttread]

Just 40 years ago a couple could get married , raise a family, own a home and fund a retirement on one income with no investment of time or money in college. What the hell happened?

[Peter1469]

Just 40 years ago a couple could get married , raise a family, own a home and fund a retirement on one income with no investment of time or money in college. What the hell happened?

Government decided to grow to protect us from cradle to grave, and the people got lost in the shuffle.

[Dr. Who]

You are always backwards. Maybe it is because you think the economy is a fix pie. If the rich take 90% of the pie the poor get 10% of the pie.

That is not reality. The world doesn't work that way. If the poor near me have high speed internet, a smart phone, and a better car than mine I don't give a shit that I make 200X more than them. They are doing just fine.
Well, more likely they live from pay check to pay check and spend everything that they have on the luxuries that make them feel like they are relevant. People who actually have money can be eccentric and throw tens of thousands or millions into savings or investments and appear to live like paupers but in reality have everything that they want. :shrug: People who learn to save will get ahead faster.

[donttread]

Well put. However, it's part of an age old story that repeats over and over again. With each generation the halves use their money to buy influence to tilt the table ever increasingly in their favor.

[Chris]

Well put. However, it's part of an age old story that repeats over and over again. With each generation the halves use their money to buy influence to tilt the table ever increasingly in their favor.

But where is the moral wrong here. That one employs one's wealth to seek favors? Or than another takes that wealth as bribe to take wealth from others?

[donttread]

But where is the moral wrong here. That one employs one's wealth to seek favors? Or than another takes that wealth as bribe to take wealth from others?

Well both. It's played out throughout history and almost inevitably leads to revolt, a reset and the process begins again

[Peter1469]

Just I am going to post the graph. I don't have comments about it. The graph explains everything... Ah yes, one thing I have to say... Reagan is the greatest president...

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fIM_DfXKCXGRmJ3p87EiUlPh0pw=/750x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/1400916/BuX2fpzIAAAZc77.0.0.jpg
http://Source: Vox

But I suppose that Liberals/Libertarians won't have any problem with those graphs. They support those changes. They hate equality.

Edit: fix link. (http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/25/6843509/income-distribution-recoveries-pavlina-tcherneva)

The graph is based off misleading data. It is from the French economist Thomas Piketty (http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/cv-en), and his work resulting in his latest book, Capital in the 21st Century (http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X). Even though many believe that his conclusions were incorrect, no serious person will discount the research that went into the book- he has done far more than most if not all economists in calculating economic data over a large time frame.

There are many criticisms of his work, the one that directly affects this chart is government assistance. It isn't there.... Add in government assistance payments and those blue columns would be a lot higher than they are....

:shocked:

[Mac-7]

There are many criticisms of his work, the one that directly affects this chart is government assistance. It isn't there.... Add in government assistance payments and those blue columns would be a lot higher than they are....

:shocked:

Government assistance, huh?

is that all?

you guys had me worried for a while that there might be something wrong with our economy.

but I guess that as long as the welfare state can take from the rich and give to the poor we have nothing to worry about.

[Peter1469]

Government assistance, huh?

is that all?

you guys had me worried for a while that there might be something wrong with our economy.

but I guess that as long as the welfare state can take from the rich and give to the poor we have nothing to worry about.

I am not sure what you are getting at. You seem to be making some sort of emotional appeal in response to my statement of fact: Piketty did not include government assistance payments in his graph that purports to show increased inequality.

[Mac-7]

I am not sure what you are getting at. You seem to be making some sort of emotional appeal in response to my statement of fact: Piketty did not include government assistance payments in his graph that purports to show increased inequality.

I appreciate you pointing that out.

At least we have a clearer picture of what is wrong.

The socially liberated left, which is often one and the same with the economic left who worship socialism like to discount the 50's as a bad decade when their own chart shows that it may have been the best time in recent American history.