User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Americans' Incomes Are Unequal, But Mobile

  1. #1
    Points: 665,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433305
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,542
    Points
    665,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,981
    Thanked 80,894x in 54,712 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Americans' Incomes Are Unequal, But Mobile

    These findings dispel the class oppression nonsense on income inequality.

    Americans' Incomes Are Unequal, But Mobile

    Americans often move between different income brackets over the course of their lives. As covered in an earlier blog post, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives, and over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners for at least one year.

    Fortunately, a great deal of what explains this income mobility are choices that are largely within an individual’s control. While people tend to earn more in their “prime earning years” than in their youth or old age, other key factors that explain income differences are education level, marital status, and number of earners per household. As Mark Perry recently wrote:

    The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes and are largely under our control (e.g. staying in school and graduating, getting and staying married, etc.), which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever.

    According to the economist Thomas Sowell, whom Perry cites, “Most working Americans, who were initially in the bottom 20% of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20%. More of them end up in the top 20% than remain in the bottom 20%.”
    So, while, she goes on, income inequality is real, the above shows it's not as simple as demagogues believe, that a large part of the problem is regressive government regulations which, lifted, would increase income mobility, reduce income inequality, and further economic growth.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (02-09-2016),Peter1469 (02-09-2016),zelmo1234 (02-09-2016)

  3. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496507
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,614
    Points
    858,815
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,190
    Thanked 147,517x in 94,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good website.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  4. #3
    Points: 43,175, Level: 50
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 375
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mark III's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    25354
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4,684
    Points
    43,175
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    126
    Thanked 1,315x in 1,041 Posts
    Mentioned
    81 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In 2011, you had to make at least 160,000 a year to be in the top 10 percent.











    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/...rcent-are-you/



    INCOME
    WEALTH

    Enter your household income
    160000

    90%


    I don't care what stats you think you have . There is no way that 50% of Americans make 160,000 a year, FOR EVEN ONE YEAR. Unless they win a lottery.

    And the 160,000 is for a household to be in the 10%. Your article appears to be referring to individuals.

    1

    0
    2

    0
    3

    0
    4

    0
    5

    0
    6

    0
    7

    0
    8

    0
    9

    0



  5. #4
    Points: 147,385, Level: 92
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 2,865
    Overall activity: 75.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    zelmo1234's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156770
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MICHIGAN
    Posts
    56,165
    Points
    147,385
    Level
    92
    Thanks Given
    24,283
    Thanked 20,054x in 14,357 Posts
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark III View Post
    In 2011, you had to make at least 160,000 a year to be in the top 10 percent.


    And?








    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/...rcent-are-you/



    INCOME
    WEALTH

    Enter your household income
    160000

    90%


    I don't care what stats you think you have . There is no way that 50% of Americans make 160,000 a year, FOR EVEN ONE YEAR. Unless they win a lottery.

    And the 160,000 is for a household to be in the 10%. Your article appears to be referring to individuals.

    1

    0
    2

    0
    3

    0
    4

    0
    5

    0
    6

    0
    7

    0
    8

    0
    9

    0



  6. #5
    Points: 43,175, Level: 50
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 375
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mark III's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    25354
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4,684
    Points
    43,175
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    126
    Thanked 1,315x in 1,041 Posts
    Mentioned
    81 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    About half of Americans currently make 30,000 a year or less. How many of those will be making 160,000 before long? Some, a few ?

    Not many.

  7. #6
    Points: 665,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433305
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,542
    Points
    665,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,981
    Thanked 80,894x in 54,712 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark III View Post
    In 2011, you had to make at least 160,000 a year to be in the top 10 percent.











    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/...rcent-are-you/



    INCOME
    WEALTH

    Enter your household income
    160000

    90%


    I don't care what stats you think you have . There is no way that 50% of Americans make 160,000 a year, FOR EVEN ONE YEAR. Unless they win a lottery.

    And the 160,000 is for a household to be in the 10%. Your article appears to be referring to individuals.

    1

    0
    2

    0
    3

    0
    4

    0
    5

    0
    6

    0
    7

    0
    8

    0
    9

    0



    Personal incredulity is fallacious. The data presented in the OP is factual.


    Your article appears to be referring to individuals.
    That's right. The problem with statistics on groups is they are static, while individuals are mobile income-wise. There will always be a group of poor, middle class and rich. People move about in and across them.

    One of the problems is the statistics. The statistics really—how should I put it?—they talk as if the statistics refer to a given set of people, sometimes called the rich and the poor. But in point of fact, they do not. They refer to whoever happens to be in a particular income bracket at a particular time. And Americans who, for example, start out in the bottom 20 percent, over 95 percent of the people who start out there are no longer there 15 years later. In fact, more of them reach the top 20 percent after that period of time than remain in the bottom 20 percent. So, the stats that are normally quoted are usually very misleading.
    Thomas Sowell, mentioned in OP, @ http://www.worldmag.com/2014/12/thom...ome_inequality
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  8. #7
    Points: 665,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433305
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,542
    Points
    665,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,981
    Thanked 80,894x in 54,712 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark III View Post
    About half of Americans currently make 30,000 a year or less. How many of those will be making 160,000 before long? Some, a few ?

    Not many.
    Many if you look at actual data.

    Anyone who follows the media has probably heard many times that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and incomes of the population in general are stagnating. Moreover, those who say such things can produce many statistics, including data from the Census Bureau, which seem to indicate that.

    On the other hand, income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005.

    The top one percent — "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left — saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent.

    Meanwhile, the average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.

    How can all this be? How can official statistics from different agencies of the same government — the Census Bureau and the IRS — lead to such radically different conclusions?

    There are wild cards in such data that need to be kept in mind when you hear income statistics thrown around — especially when they are thrown around by people who are trying to prove something for political purposes.

    One of these wild cards is that most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.

    What that means statistically is that comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years....
    Thomas Sowell, mentioned in OP, @ http://www.creators.com/opinion/thom...confusion.html
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  9. #8
    Points: 80,798, Level: 69
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 1,652
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    del's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    1781014
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    30,663
    Points
    80,798
    Level
    69
    Thanks Given
    12,798
    Thanked 18,872x in 12,227 Posts
    Mentioned
    499 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    always good to have an opinion piece to back up the first opinion piece

    i'm completely convinced now.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts