Top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income
- Thread starter Joeychgo
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Wow. Shag is on fire today.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
So you like it when he blows his smoke up your skirt? Got it.
shag said:
Shag, we're saying the same thing. The only difference is you are attempting to delegitimize static analyisis by claiming future behavior changes will have unpredictable effects, and only through dynamic analysis, where you are left to GUESS at how future policies, that have yet to be accurately defined, will cause behavior changes and that the resulting prediction of the future will be more accurate. How do you propose those behavior changes will affect the future when you don't even yet know what policy changes that drive those behaviors are going to be? You are also ignoring the fact that in general, any possible future policy change has likely been implemented in the past (like tax cuts or tax increases) and the resulting behavioral reaction to those changes have already occurred and are captured in the historical imperical data. Only when the variables that affect the future (policy changes, and behaviorial reaction to those specific policy changes) are well defined and understood, will dynamic analysis result in a more accurate prediction of the future than static analysis of historical data.
Johnny and I are unquestionably not talking about the same thing.
In this earlier post, Johnny is inferring that because a static analysis occurs over time (example; comparing stats in 1950 to 1960), and because it is inherently looking at society in the aggregate it includes all those dynamic factors and therefore is a dynamic analysis. This is an attempt to deceive through a false argument:
The logical fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible.
Johnny's argument here is false because it deceptively and implicitly redefines the concept of dynamic analysis (a fact I explained in my last post).What Johnny is attempting to do is to delegitimize the distinction between static and dynamic analysis instead of confronting and defending the methodological flaws in the static analysis he is perpetuating. In fact, that is the entire focus of his efforts now in this thread.
When that attempted redefinition was shown to be fraudulent, Johnny simply changes his argument (in his more recent post) to attempt to delegitimize the distinction in question in a different manner.
Johnny does this by setting up and disproving a straw man misrepresentation:
Johnny is incorrectly inferring from my argument that behavioral changes are "unpredictable" and trying to account for them is simply foolish speculation; a "guess" as he puts it.
The truth is that I never said anything about behavior being unpredictable. In fact, the inference from my argument was that behavior is predictable but that static analysis simply doesn't bother with trying to predict behavior in it's analysis.
The logical inference from Johnny's argument here is that any and every social science would be completely irrelevant. Understanding behavioral patterns, making inferences about behavior and/or making predictions about behavior is the ultimate focus of all social science. Johnny's argument would discredit static analysis as well.
In other words, in attempting to dodge the dynamic analysis critique by delegitimizing the distinction between dynamic analysis and static analysis, Johnny is implicitly delegitimizing the economic analysis he is promoting as well. This is a very common problem when you look to win a debate by default instead of honestly and respectfully confronting arguments on their merits of their ideas.
Both the sham and the fake inquirer, but especially the sham, are motivated to avoid examining any apparently contrary evidence or argument too closely, to play down its importance or impugn its relevance, to contort themselves explaining it away. And, since people often mistake the impressively obscure for the profound, both, but especially the fake reasoner, are motivated to obfuscate.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
it is the rich whom make lower-income americans recieve less pay, less benefits...not just the fact they could send their resources overseas but that Americans need money to buy products WE DONT F*CKING NEED!!!!!
We sell and create more useless sh*t than stuff we can bear with and grow naturally.
In addition when you drive down the employee wage you also make the employee have to work more hours to be able to accomodate..hense then they don't need to hire more people but yet slave those who currently work. Then because we don't make enough we rely on debt..then we get into so much debt that if threatened with our job if we don't work harder or ask for raises that we bend over and take it in the @ss because you owe the banks...you have nothing saved...probably no 401k, etc etc etc
American just have bad morals of corperate business. Ethics have gone to sh*t
We sell and create more useless sh*t than stuff we can bear with and grow naturally.
In addition when you drive down the employee wage you also make the employee have to work more hours to be able to accomodate..hense then they don't need to hire more people but yet slave those who currently work. Then because we don't make enough we rely on debt..then we get into so much debt that if threatened with our job if we don't work harder or ask for raises that we bend over and take it in the @ss because you owe the banks...you have nothing saved...probably no 401k, etc etc etc
American just have bad morals of corperate business. Ethics have gone to sh*t
Nicely stated-
but I do think we need to be careful when ascribing motivation.
(But most importantly, I just wanted to quickly move past Pete's post)
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Sorry Cal, I'm going to address Pete here.
If only you got as mad at big labor and big government.
Have you ever asked the question 'why' they send resources overseas? Did you know that America is one of the most business-unfriendly countries in the world these days? Corporate taxes and regulations are so high and unions are so deadly to business, it's cost prohibitive to do just about anything here without a subsidy (see American carmakers). So businesses have to go overseas to survive. Contrary to popular myopic belief, businesses don't exist to create jobs, but to make a profit.
If only you got as mad at big labor and big government.
Have you ever looked at your check and imagined how your life would be different if you didn't have such a high tax bill? The reason wages are so low and prices are so high is because of taxes. If the government cared about anything other than filling its own voracious maw, we might have more than just 1/8 of our productivity to live on. The fact is that through corporate taxes, union presence, and government regulations, prices are artificially high and wages are artificially low. Nowadays both spouses have to work just to survive, not just for extra money.
No, it's the government's fault primarily. There is no greed that even approaches the level in Washington. Anybody that would tax the very air you breathe is corrupt and doesn't have any business being in charge of us.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
My bad, I mistakenly attributed that statement to you when it actually came from the link you referenced. Which begs the question, if you don't agree with that statement, then WHY did you include it in your reply? Obsfucation? Ignorance?
Looks like I have to add PROJECTION to the growing list of tactics you employ when you debate this issue:
There, I fixed that for you.
And I'll add ad-hominem personal attacks as well:
Shag is merely trying to deflect and distract the attention away from the original issue this thread was originally talking about by doing logical cartwheels using every sophmoric philosophical tactic he is able to cut-n-paste from his armada of debate "weapons". The FACT remains, and has been undisputed by anyone here, that over the last 60 years Americans at all income levels have prospered more under Democratic economic policies than they have under Republican policies. PERIOD. The strawman Shag and "the others" have been arguing regarding "class mobility", or that "static analyis" assumes a rigid income class structure where no one moves between classis is not only false, but is not applicable and only serves to distract from those facts. Nobody has claimed that class mobility exists or that it is a bad thing. Furthermore, nobody has claimed that income disparity is a bad thing, or should not exist and should be abolished. What IS bad, is economic policies like those employed by Republicans that make income disparity WORSE. Left unchecked, those policies lead to an imperialistic society. Not one shred of hard evidence has been provided by Shag or his minions that disproves those facts. And as typical, when Shag finally runs out of ammunition, he resorts to personal attacks so that he has at least that little mound of dirt to plant his "victory" flag. It must really suck to have to rely on discrediting debate tactics and personal attacks instead of facts to "win" an argument. But Shag remains our shining example of someone who can still find solace in that.
You're completely wrong yet you insist on digging in.
The statistical information you posted demonstrates nothing, it's a political tool- highly effective at manipulating people like you.
Let me ask you, what does it demonstrate, specifically.
Income growth rates in quintiles.
Merely raising the minimum wage will skew the appearance of that poll.
But if nearly everyone in the bottom 20% suddenly was earning enough to be in the top quintile 8 years later, it might actually make the chart look as though things were less favorable.
Do you understand this point?
Most people in the bottom quintile in 1981 were in the top 2 quintiles by 1988.
So charts like the one you provided, even if they include critically important statistical information with them (which yours doesn't further rendering it worthless), and presuming the one you posted is accurate in any sense, don't give a complete picture. In fact, they provide a picture that misleads, a political tool.
But, let's put aside the discussion of statics and graphs. Topics of conversations that cause most people's eyes to roll into the backs of their head.
You said that the "economic policies employed by Republicans make income disparity worse."
There are two points here that you need to elaborate on.
1- what are the economic policies employed by Republicans?
Coolidge was vastly different than Hoover. And Nixon didn't have much in common with Reagan. So what are these universal economic policies your speaking of. What are the specific policies that you're referring too that are bad. And what policies embraced by Democrats (and there is much more uniformity in Democrat economic policy) are you considering to be good?
And it's also significant that you said "income disparities."
Why does that matter? If the standards of living of all American's are increasing, why does it matter if Bill Gates makes more than someone at the bottom of the bottom quintile? Do you deem economic policy to be more successful just because it's more "equal." That sounds rather Marxist to me. Is it the job of the federal government to make sure that our economy is under central control and all wealth is distributed evenly amongst all people? Are you a Marxist, Johnny?
The statistical information you posted demonstrates nothing, it's a political tool- highly effective at manipulating people like you.
Let me ask you, what does it demonstrate, specifically.
Income growth rates in quintiles.
Merely raising the minimum wage will skew the appearance of that poll.
But if nearly everyone in the bottom 20% suddenly was earning enough to be in the top quintile 8 years later, it might actually make the chart look as though things were less favorable.
Do you understand this point?
Most people in the bottom quintile in 1981 were in the top 2 quintiles by 1988.
So charts like the one you provided, even if they include critically important statistical information with them (which yours doesn't further rendering it worthless), and presuming the one you posted is accurate in any sense, don't give a complete picture. In fact, they provide a picture that misleads, a political tool.
But, let's put aside the discussion of statics and graphs. Topics of conversations that cause most people's eyes to roll into the backs of their head.
You said that the "economic policies employed by Republicans make income disparity worse."
There are two points here that you need to elaborate on.
1- what are the economic policies employed by Republicans?
Coolidge was vastly different than Hoover. And Nixon didn't have much in common with Reagan. So what are these universal economic policies your speaking of. What are the specific policies that you're referring too that are bad. And what policies embraced by Democrats (and there is much more uniformity in Democrat economic policy) are you considering to be good?
And it's also significant that you said "income disparities."
Why does that matter? If the standards of living of all American's are increasing, why does it matter if Bill Gates makes more than someone at the bottom of the bottom quintile? Do you deem economic policy to be more successful just because it's more "equal." That sounds rather Marxist to me. Is it the job of the federal government to make sure that our economy is under central control and all wealth is distributed evenly amongst all people? Are you a Marxist, Johnny?
Do you have actual numbers on this Cal - or where did you get your info?
And I would imagine this also happened during other years - like the Clinton years, the Johnson years, the Eisenhower years... I would imagine it is rather status quo most of the time.
Ah - the boogey word - marxist - huh Cal... throw it around, add the quick label, because it is what you do best. This isn't about marxism...
Actually the real question here is, and if you go back to Joey's first post - is it healthy to have 23% of income (not wealth, that is a whole different thing) concentrated in the top 1% of the population?
Do you think it is Cal? Does having disparity of that magnitude equate to having a robust, healthy, thriving economy?
I am not advocating income redistribution or anything - no sharing of the wealth - but just as a number crunching exercise - does it bode well for the economy if this trend continues?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Hahahahahahahahah!
Look at all the disclaimers fox felt she had to include in her class warfare - errrrrr - number crunching exercise post.
As Shakespeare says, The "lady" doth protest too much, methinks. :bowrofl:
What is wrong with that? What is "unhealthy" about it? The history of civilization proves that social stratification in the area of income is not only natural but desirable.
No one here has yet to show that income stratification is, in any way, a legitimate economic concern.
While it may be an emotionally satisfying ready-made narrative to buy into, the class exploitation narrative is simplistic and makes no sense from an economic or social causation perspective.
Instead of attempts to prove the legitimacy of that narrative, it is presumptuously assumed to be self-evidently true and above the need for either a logical justification or a reasonable defense against counterarguments. No mutually respectful, productive discourse is possible in that atmosphere.
You would be correct, economic mobility within our society has traditionally been expected. Yet it's not represented in a static snapshot like the graph provided earlier presents.
I asked a question. Your effort to create "boogey" words only demonstrates the fact that you'd like to run from those words and take them out of the conversation.
No, that would be a question-
You might have noticed, you waited until page three before you jumped in to spill you rhetoric.
And while your busy trying to reframe this subject with your class warfare imagery, you may notice I did ask Johnny about that.
To quote myself:
There are two points here that you need to elaborate on.
1- what are the economic policies employed by Republicans?
Coolidge was vastly different than Hoover. And Nixon didn't have much in common with Reagan. So what are these universal economic policies your speaking of. What are the specific policies that you're referring too that are bad. And what policies embraced by Democrats (and there is much more uniformity in Democrat economic policy) are you considering to be good?
And it's also significant that you said "income disparities."
Why does that matter? If the standards of living of all American's are increasing, why does it matter if Bill Gates makes more than someone at the bottom of the bottom quintile? Do you deem economic policy to be more successful just because it's more "equal." That sounds rather Marxist to me. Is it the job of the federal government to make sure that our economy is under central control and all wealth is distributed evenly amongst all people? Are you a Marxist, Johnny?
How can you say you support capitalism and free markets, foxpaws, if you want the outcome to be centrally planned and distributed?
A healthy, robust thriving economy isn't defined by the difference in earnings between the top and bottom earners.
The guy in the top 1% this year might be in the bottom 20% next year.
The differences in income is not important. Using that logic, would we have a better more robust economy is everyone was equally poor?
If the standard of living were equally low, or rising equally slow?
Of course not. It's class warfare rhetoric.
My standard of living isn't hurt by Bill Gates making a fortune. And, it's also important to note, that while Gates may have made billions of dollars, he's also created wealth through out the society. Microsoft made a lot of regular people millionaires.
To continue the class warfare rhetoric, If Bill Gates made $101 Billion, you make it sound bad if he's hired 30 janitors at Microsoft who only make $40k.
And how many people work on his house? How dependent is his city on his nearly $1M in property taxes?
As you pointed out, there is class mobility in this country. Regardless how much Bill Gates has made, that hasn't reduced the standard of living for other people. There isn't a finite amount of wealth that he's taking a larger portion of either. The fact is, there's more wealth and the standards of living and quality of life has improved. What the top 1% earn or don't earn in a year has nothing to do with that
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
Sorry Cal, I'm going to address Pete here.
Have you ever asked the question 'why' they send resources overseas? Did you know that America is one of the most business-unfriendly countries in the world these days? Corporate taxes and regulations are so high and unions are so deadly to business, it's cost prohibitive to do just about anything here without a subsidy (see American carmakers). So businesses have to go overseas to survive. Contrary to popular myopic belief, businesses don't exist to create jobs, but to make a profit.
If only you got as mad at big labor and big government.
Have you ever looked at your check and imagined how your life would be different if you didn't have such a high tax bill? The reason wages are so low and prices are so high is because of taxes. If the government cared about anything other than filling its own voracious maw, we might have more than just 1/8 of our productivity to live on. The fact is that through corporate taxes, union presence, and government regulations, prices are artificially high and wages are artificially low. Nowadays both spouses have to work just to survive, not just for extra money.
No, it's the government's fault primarily. There is no greed that even approaches the level in Washington. Anybody that would tax the very air you breathe is corrupt and doesn't have any business being in charge of us.
Indeed I will agree the government is also to blame but if you think of it. Taxes are high on the 99% of America because the amount we were charging to the 1% after the great depression offset that difference...because we taxed the 1% so much we had a brand new infastructure...we had happy families where only 1 spouse had to work.....people could buy new cars...without credit!!!!
It's the fact that the full circle..the full spectrum that is corrupt. We've become bathed as a society in greed, in concern for ones-self. For instance Unions ask too much or too high of demands (cause they got greedy) big companies turned to overseas/paying workers less...because of greed, and the government won't do sh1t because that 1% is paying their campaigns...more greed.
If only we taxed the rich more...but gave them discounts and insentives such as paying less for land or property.....higher tax return for employees being healthier....etc etc I could go on with the ideas
I mean wouldn't them rich people enjoy the roads being don to where there's no potholes, debris, and sh*t on the road to ruin their ride in the expensive automobiles? just an example....
foss I can agree with you on your account but my information bears no neglect
I am not really sure what you are saying here, but you may want to study the great depression in a bit more detail.
YouTube - Thomas Sowell explains the Great Depression
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Many years ago, when I first started working on a commission-only basis, a wise man said to me, "When you think about it, you'll notice that what the other guy makes doesn't either put anything in your pocket or take anything out. If somebody else gets a bigger check, it just shows what you can do if you apply yourself."
Since that time I've seen innumerable cases of people agonizing over what somebody else has. They'd rather whine and complain than get to work and lift themselves. But whinging is much easier than giving extra effort.
Grow up!
KS
Since that time I've seen innumerable cases of people agonizing over what somebody else has. They'd rather whine and complain than get to work and lift themselves. But whinging is much easier than giving extra effort.
Grow up!
KS
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
touche
Does the word Marxist belong in a conversation where the question really is is it healthy for 1% of the population to be earning 23/5% of the income.
Well, Cal, I may have been busy - what a concept.
That doesn't ask the question of whether or not a healthy economy has the top 1% of income earners making 23.5% of the income - that is some weird question about Dems vs Rep. I don't care about that - I just want to know if you think that having that percentage of income to earners is healthy... Probably can't answer that...
Once again - I don't think the outcome needs to be centrally planned and distributed - all I am is asking a question - is the current 'status quo' of 1% of wage earners make 23% of the income a healthy or desired state?
Or, is it just something we live with - because there isn't anyway around it?
No, our economy wouldn't be more robust if everyone was poor - but, does the economy become more/less robust depending on where the income (once again, not wealth) is concentrated? Do you have an answer to that Cal?
Bill Gates making a lot of money is actually good for society - correct? I agree with that. And Microsoft created many jobs. However, right now, with the income skewing more and more into the higher brackets, does it appear that there are only so many jobs that those 'income earners' can create? We now have fewer jobs, as a percentage of population, than we have had in quite a while (as Foss is always anxious to point out). Is it because those in the upper brackets have a 'top end' of job creation threshold no matter how much income they make. It might even be detrimental to them to have so much income concentrated in one level. How many versions of Microsoft Office does one person need? If they don't create sales in the lower income percentages, then, they can't create additional jobs either.
When did I make that sound bad Cal - I would really like you to point that out - I think you have to have lots of income strata to make an economy work - You are once again crediting me with something I didn't state - you need to stop doing that. It is wrong, and presents an incorrect view of what I am trying to ask - which is just a simple question...
Is having the top 1% of the nation making 23.5% of the income healthy?
Is our quality of life better than it was in 1998 - according to the poverty levels (which I know are subject to a lot of debate - but if you compare just raw poverty levels it is fairly accurate - apples to apples more or less) it isn't. Is there a correlation - if more income is concentrated in a smaller percentage - it has to come from somewhere - if in 1970 only 9% of the income was concentrated in the top 1%, than there was 14.5% more income floating around in the lower 99% of the population.
Is that better - is it better to have more income at lower levels than to have a large amount concentrated in the top 1% of income earners. Not that we should create some sort of false 'leveler' but just as a snapshot of the economy - when is it 'healthiest'? Do 'healthy' times correlate with income being more spread across the strata? When the economy tanks does it seem like a lot of income in pushed into the top percentiles.
That is what this is about, not movement or anything along those lines.
I think income stratification is fine - those who have and those who have not is just the way of capitalism. But, the economy can be 'healthy' and 'not healthy', we might not be able to do anything to alter the state of health of the economy - but to bury your head in the sand and just say that I am suddenly going along the lines of class exploitation is wrong shag. Our economy right now isn't all that healthy - there are many problems - huge government spending - foreign markets in a tizzy - inconceivable debt - but, is one of the signs of an unhealthy economy a lot of income concentrated into a very small percentage of the population? It has been in the past an indication of some sort.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
How about taxes concentrated into a very small percentage of the population? I'm sure you're okay with that, eh fox?
Tell me, fox, now that the poverty level is at its highest point since 1994 (what a coincidence), how's that ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR WAR on poverty going?
Only when a "healthy economy" is equated with an "egalitarian economy" can income stratification be seen as a sign of a weak economy. In other words, only if one has such a myopic focus on achieving a more "equal" society that the very standards of economic judgment are altered to fit that view can a large chunk of income concentrated in the hands of a few be seen as an indicator of a bad economy.
Most people understand a healthy economy to be a prosperous economy. Income stratification is a natural byproduct of that so, if anything, it would be seen as an indicator of a healthy economy. However, at best it would serve as a poor indicator.
As I have alluded to before, income disparity between classes only becomes an issue if you assume a Marxist or Marxist-derived understanding of the economy and of social causation. Income stratification is an issue only if it is operationally assumed that the rich get richer by taking from the poor and the middle class. Income disparity is only a concern if the economy is viewed as a "zero-sum" game; as a finite pie from which the rich have an unfairly large slice.
No one in this thread has provided either a justification for these assumptions or some alternative assumptions that would justify income stratification as a legitimate economic concern.
Most people understand a healthy economy to be a prosperous economy. Income stratification is a natural byproduct of that so, if anything, it would be seen as an indicator of a healthy economy. However, at best it would serve as a poor indicator.
As I have alluded to before, income disparity between classes only becomes an issue if you assume a Marxist or Marxist-derived understanding of the economy and of social causation. Income stratification is an issue only if it is operationally assumed that the rich get richer by taking from the poor and the middle class. Income disparity is only a concern if the economy is viewed as a "zero-sum" game; as a finite pie from which the rich have an unfairly large slice.
No one in this thread has provided either a justification for these assumptions or some alternative assumptions that would justify income stratification as a legitimate economic concern.
Absolutely.
The unspecific graph posted broke things down in Republican and Democat terms, and that is where Johnny took the conversation. Whether you care about that or not is surely quite fascinating to some, but of no interest to me.
There is no answer to the question you keep repeating because there isn't enough information provided to make any decision. And framing it in such a manner evokes class warfare rhetoric consist with the Marxist view of the economics. If the top 1% are stealing all the wealth and the bottom 99% have a terrible, low standard of living, it is very different than if everyone has a high standard of living and the top 1% are also creating wealth and opportunity that is improving the lives of everyone.
You live with an unequal distribution of wealth in a free market because it results in the best possible outcome for society.
You're now venturing out of the realm of the hypothetical and imposing a real situation, "right now."
"Right now" there are influences on the markets and economies that are far beyond the "invisible hand." Right now is not good. And that's consistent with what I'm saying. Merely noting the difference between the 1% or 20% is absolutely pointless with the full context.
And I don't understand the challenge you presented about the "top end" of job creation. There are external influences on the market that are influencing the job market. One factor includes the increasingly expensive regulation that the federal government is imposing on the markets, the other is the uncertainty that they are creating as well.
There's also the issue of the massive inflation and borrowing taking place, the impending defaults, and the instability such a situation creates.
It might be wonderful if everyone had everything from their ability to their needs too... There is no utopia. So it doesn't matter if it'd be better to have a more equitable distribution of wealth through society, any effort to do so by government (and that's the only possible way to attempt to do it) will lead to negatives and inefficiencies.
The healthiest is the dynamic outcome that is produced by the free markets. And while that 1% might have over twenty percent of the income right now, in five years, they may be broke, or have falled to a different quintile.
Not necessarily
Income is not the same as wealth.