how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|  jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S.....
i've only made more than $20k one year in my life but i'm grateful to those evil high-earners who pay 10,100, or 1000x the taxes that the avg person does....we don't need to villify them and steal their money.... | |
| | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by jfd15:and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S..... The question is whether that's fair.
For example, I doubt you'd suggest that the top 10% should pay 10% of the taxes in the US. Clearly you have your own ideas about what's "fair." So, we're just negotiating "fair." Should it be 71% or, 78% ?
The problem with the idea that the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share is that, since taxes were made less progressive (in the early '80s), the top 10% have increased their share of every dollar earned to its highest level since 1929 (when wealth disparity was at its highest levels). From 34% to 46%. About a 33% increase.
But, more revealing is that almost *all* the top one-tenth's share gains, went to the top 1%, or the top "centile," who doubled their share of national cash income from 9% to 19%.
Even within the top centile, however, the distribution of gains was radically skewed. Nearly 60% of it went to the top *tenth* of 1% of the population, and more than a fourth of it to the top *one-hundreth* of 1% of the population.
Overall, the top tenth of 1% more than tripled their share of cash income to about 9%, while the top one-hundreth of 1%, or fewer than 15,000 taxpayers, quadrupled their share to 3.6% of all taxable income. Among those 15,000, the average tax return reported $26 mil of income in 2005, while the take for the entire group was $384 bil.
In 2005, the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1% had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population.
30 years ago, Ronald Reagan asked, "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He used this rhetorical question to get elected and reduce the progressivity of taxation. (And, eliminate various regulations which allowed government-backed Savings & Loans to be pillaged.).
Today, if we ask the same question, we're met with jeers of "socialism." | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. I'd be interested to see what the "overall" numbers look like instead of just the percentages of distribution. For example, if during that time, the poorest still doubled their income while the richest quadrupled their income, even the poorest are still FAR better off. If there's more wealth in the system, everyone is benefiting, even if some are gaining at a more rapid rate. Trying to make everything as equal as possible just creates a system where everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator... | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by lakerfan82:For example, if during that time, the poorest still doubled their income while the richest quadrupled their income, even the poorest are still FAR better off. I was talking about the share of every available dollar of income. You can't double or quadruple that share without someone losing share.
That's why "trickle down" didn't work. The average American's income went down after being adjusted for inflation. Average income for 90% of population peaked in 1973 at $33k. By 2009 it was $29k.
The top centile (1%) doubled their share of the national income. The top 1/10th of 1% tripled their share. The top 1/100th of 1% quadrupled.
It's the same concept as CEO pay rising from 33 times the average worker's income in 1977, to 300 times in the year 2000. Ultimately that money comes from somewhere. It's less compensation available to the average worker who makes up 90% of a corporation's employees. | |
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. Again, you can say that out of every dollar, group A received X% and group B only received X/4%, but if there are significantly more dollars in the system (which is the case), group B's status can still improve.
Its just like Android vs iOS. Currently, in terms of market share, Android is behind iOS. However, by 2014, Google is projected to have the largest marketshare, taking "share" from iOS. But guess what, because the market for smartphone operating systems in 2014 will be almost double what it is now, iOS will be selling nearly twice as many phones and making twice as much money as they do currently even as Google will be making 4 times as much money. Both improve on their current status even as one takes "share"...
In addition, I have a hard time believing that someone making $33k in 1973 is "better off" than someone making $29k in 2009. Technology improvements over the last 35 years have increased standards of living greatly. Is someone in 1973 making $33k going to be able to afford a computer or a plane ticket? I'd like to see some disposable income statistics from '73 to '09... | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by lakerfan82:Again, you can say that out of every dollar, group A received X% and group B only received X/4%, but if there are significantly more dollars in the system (which is the case), group B's status can still improve. How would the status improve when their inflation-adjusted incomes have remain flat or dropped?
See:
- »www.declineoftheempire.com/2010/···ing.html
- »sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news···d43b1856
said by lakerfan82:In addition, I have a hard time believing that someone making $33k in 1973 is "better off" than someone making $29k in 2009. Technology improvements over the last 35 years have increased standards of living greatly. Is someone in 1973 making $33k going to be able to afford a computer or a plane ticket? Those improvements in standards of living apply to everyone, right?
OTOH, we had regulatory rollbacks which led to bailing out the financial industry and benefiting some Americans (with invested capital) more than others (common workers).
You could say "hey, they still have a job... so they benefited from the bailout too." But, they didn't quite benefit in the same way as Goldman Sach's employees receiving record bonuses.
I think most people thought "trickle down" would be a little more substantial than these examples.
I do agree with you that the notional "value" of compensation changes over time with the goods and services that can be bought.
For example, when people complain about the deflationary nature of fiat currency (how a dollar won't buy what it did 50 years ago), I always respond that someone like Babe Ruth would have eagerly exchanged his 1940s dollars for today's dollars -- dollars which can purchase a treatment for cancer.
Therefore, I do agree with you that it's hard to compare the "value" of dollars 50 years ago to today's dollars. But, that tends to apply to the entire population. Just as Jaime the janitorial guy can buy a computer for $300, a corporation's CEO can buy a Lear Jet (when such was was not available to most CEOs 50 years ago).
There's really no way to spin this nation's growing wealth and income disparity. Comparing flat wages of 90% of the population to 1/100th of 1% quadrupling theirs isn't going to reasonate with too many people outside the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1%, and who had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population. | |
| | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by amigo_boy:Therefore, I do agree with you that it's hard to compare the "value" of dollars 50 years ago to today's dollars. But, that tends to apply to the entire population. Just as Jaime the janitorial guy can buy a computer for $300, a corporation's CEO can buy a Lear Jet (when such was was not available to most CEOs 50 years ago). What if the only reason Jaime the Janitorial guy has a job is because the evil CEO bought a Lear jet from the company Jaime works at? I could honestly care less what people who make more than me spend their money on while my standard of living continues to improve.
There's really no way to spin this nation's growing wealth and income disparity. Comparing flat wages of 90% of the population to 1/100th of 1% quadrupling theirs isn't going to reasonate with too many people outside the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1%, and who had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population.
Since we already agree that it is extremely hard, if not impossible to compare the "value" of a dollar over that length of time, this fairness argument is essentially meaningless. If everyone's status (standard of living, etc) is improving, you can't argue that one group is worse off. You are complaining that one group's standard of living is improving at a faster rate than another group but acting like that other group is turning into a refugee camp when in reality their standard of living continues to improve. All you are doing is playing class warfare games. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by lakerfan82:I could honestly care less what people who make more than me spend their money on while my standard of living continues to improve. Unfortunately, standards of living are not improving for millions of Americans. Ronald Reagan validated the concept of asking "are you better off than you were" in 1980. It's perfectly reasonable to ask how we're better off 30 years later. If some benefited inordinately than others.
If you're not concerned with that, good for you. Most are concerned with issues such as the average worker carrying the burden of our national defense interests (by being forced to "compete" in a market where China's currency is manipulated to the disadvantage of the American worker -- and our society won't stand up for our national interest in this regard because we need China's help with North Korea. That is a direct nationa-defense cost borne inordinately by one class of American. While other Americans have seen their incomes quadruple.).
said by lakerfan82:You are complaining that one group's standard of living is improving at a faster rate than another group but acting like that other group is turning into a refugee camp when in reality their standard of living continues to improve. We're talking about two different things. One is the income used to buy goods and services that are available. And, the goods and services that are available -- and their quality/availability changes over time.
Income disparity has grown enormously. The average American's income has remained flat over 30 years, while the Americans in the top 10% have seen their incomes grow (and even quadruple in the top 1/100th of 1%).
That's a significant shift in who can buy and enjoy the improved goods and services which we both agree exist.
Your point is, those improved goods and services may not have existed if the top 1/100th of 1% of the population couldn't have increased their incomes by a whopping 400%.
The problem is: you don't know that. We had tremendous increases in the quality and availability of goods and services between 1900 and 1970. We did that without the kind of income disparity we've witnessed the past 30 years.
Your argument is like the person who said CEO pay increasing from 33 times the average worker's pay in 1977 to 300 times in the year 2000 was a result of (or, resulted in) increased GDP over that period.
But, we had the same increases of GDP for the 23 years prior to 1977 when CEO pay didn't vastly outpace the average American's.
said by lakerfan82:All you are doing is playing class warfare games. And you're naive if you believe "ox goring" doesn't exist. It's a natural result of individuals leaving the Lockean "state of nature" and forming societies for their "mutual benefit."
As soon as you have more than two people coming together to sacrifice their individual interests for "mutual benefit" there will be disagreements about what constitutes "mutual."
Wealthy people need the "consent of the governed" for things like international trade agreements negotiated by society, and to benefit financial and commercial markets -- at the expense of labor markets.
Businesses don't offshore jobs because they like those workers. They like them because they'll work cheaper. And they work cheaper because they don't have the same coerced standard of living American workers do. A direct undermining of this nation's "common" or "national" interests.
It's just a fact of life that people with shared interests will group together and discuss how their shared interests are affected by other subgroups who have similarly joined together to promote their own.
IMO, flinging the "class warfare" term is just a cheap attempt at getting people to stay in line. Stay "in their place." Don't ask how society is used to benefit some at the expense of others. (Like the use of "socialism" while hoping nobody will point out how we enjoy "socialism" in our daily lives -- even those flinging the term for self-serving purposes.).
If you don't believe what I describe is occurring, I strongly encourage you to read the book "Outliers." It gives multiple examples of how opportunities are a result of society's influences and rules. Not merely available to everyone equally. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by amigo_boy:Unfortunately, standards of living are not improving for millions of Americans. Ronald Reagan validated the concept of asking "are you better off than you were" in 1980. It's perfectly reasonable to ask how we're better off 30 years later. If some benefited inordinately than others. This is where we continue to disagree. How are standards of living not improving for "millions of americans?" I'd like an example other than "from 1973 to 2009, the wages of millions of Americans stayed flat." If the value of those "flat wages" has increased, the standard of living has increased. I don't have time to address the rest of your response, but I would love to see you give more examples of how standards of living haven't improved for even the lowest class. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by lakerfan82:If the value of those "flat wages" has increased, the standard of living has increased. You're obviously being disingenuous.
Standards of living are relative. We pick a point at which we call something "poverty" despite the fact that quality of process food or building construction has increased; or the price of clothing has gone down; or that the impoverished can make phone calls cheaper using calling cards.
Extreme wealth is regarded similarly.
When a handful of Americans have quadrupled their inflation-adjusted income, that too is relative to the millions who have remained flat, or lost ground.
That's quadruple the income to buy the better (higher-value) goods which you imply is the only measure of "standard of living."
It's perfectly natural for individuals to ask who is benefiting from society, and if it is disproportionate enough to be considered corrupt (i.e., deregulating an industry, encouraging massive accumulations of wealth through deregulation, and then bailing out those same beneficiaries when the party ended badly.).
You object that this is "class warfare." But, even Adam Smith (the darling of libertarians) recognized that markets exist within a polity. He referred to economies as not simply "economies." He called them "political economies."
He even validated so-called "class warfare" when he wrote:
quote:
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.
-- Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments pt i, sec. i, ch iii, para 28 (1759).
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by amigo_boy:You're obviously being disingenuous. Standards of living are relative. We pick a point at which we call something "poverty" despite the fact that quality of process food or building construction has increased; or the price of clothing has gone down; or that the impoverished can make phone calls cheaper using calling cards. I'm not being disingenuous. Because you can't prove that the so called impoverished are actually "worse" off now than 35 years ago, you resort to comparing them against the rich and cry foul. Again, lets break it down. Lets say you have a neighbor who makes exactly the same amount of money and has virtually identical net worth. Then, lets say you both wake up a year later and you have 2 more cars in your drive way and you've added another 800 square feet to your house. Your neighbor, on the other hand, has 8 additional cars and has actually bulldozed his house and built a new house that is 4 times the size of yours. You're basically trying to convince me that you aren't better off because your neighbor has accumulated four times more possessions than you in the same time frame. That is a complete crock. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by lakerfan82:Because you can't prove that the so called impoverished are actually "worse" off now than 35 years ago, you resort to comparing them against the rich and cry foul. The problem is that, according to you, if air and water quality improved compared to 35 years ago, you would insist that our standard of living has increased -- despite growing wealth and income disparity.
Using your definition, Americans would never have anything to complain about. A dozen people could control 99% of the nation's wealth and income. You'd dismiss it as "but, the price of hot dogs is actually lower today than they were 35 years ago." (Forget that fewer people can afford a hot dog).
said by lakerfan82:You're basically trying to convince me that you aren't better off because your neighbor has accumulated four times more possessions than you in the same time frame. That is a complete crock. If a neighbor accumulated four times more possessions as a result of laws giving him an advantage over their neighbors, you can bet those neighbors would be questioning whether the laws serve everyone, or are corrupted to serve a few.
The problem with your analogy is: how do you account for one neighbor being sacrificed at the altar of China's manipulated currency, because it's in all the neighbors' interest to keep China happy and our diplomatic proxy to North Korea?
There are many social issues that don't distill well down to the level of Fred and Ernie: two neighbors sharing a beer, and who would get upset if they caught the other's hand in their pocket. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by amigo_boy:The problem is that, according to you, if air and water quality improved compared to 35 years ago, you would insist that our standard of living has increased -- despite growing wealth and income disparity. Using your definition, Americans would never have anything to complain about. A dozen people could control 99% of the nation's wealth and income. You'd dismiss it as "but, the price of hot dogs is actually lower today than they were 35 years ago." (Forget that fewer people can afford a hot dog). Sure, if the only thing that improved was air quality, or the only thing that improved was the cheaper price of a hot dog, you'd be absolutely right. However, its the combination of all these improvements that makes a difference. Better air quality along with cheaper clothes, better processed foods, better and more efficient manufacturing processes, etc that lead to higher disposable income, better value, and therefore a higher standard of living even in the face of so called "flat" wages.
If a neighbor accumulated four times more possessions as a result of laws giving him an advantage over their neighbors, you can bet those neighbors would be questioning whether the laws serve everyone, or are corrupted to serve a few. the same laws apply to everyone in that example so your retort doesn't even make sense...
The problem with your analogy is: how do you account for one neighbor being sacrificed at the altar of China's manipulated currency, because it's in all the neighbors' interest to keep China happy and our diplomatic proxy to North Korea?
There are many social issues that don't distill well down to the level of Fred and Ernie: two neighbors sharing a beer, and who would get upset if they caught the other's hand in their pocket.
You keep bringing up China and North Korea as if they're the source of all our problems. I fail to see your point. Hypothetically, even if the China/North Korea "problem" were no longer there, the jobs would be going to the next cheapest country. Given the realities of our time, we live in a global society. Companies generally have 3 choices to stay competitive, whether you like it or not: A) Keep all their employees in the US and raise prices on their products, which will eventually lead to the company going out of business and a loss of ALL the jobs B) Keep the factory in the US and automate as much of the process as possible, but the American manufacturing employees still lose their jobs C) Move the factory to China or some other country and the American manufacturing employees lose their jobs. All three choices lead to job loss and there's really not much you can do about it, even through regulation or protectionism. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by lakerfan82:Better air quality along with cheaper clothes, better processed foods, better and more efficient manufacturing processes, etc that lead to higher disposable income, better value, and therefore a higher standard of living even in the face of so called "flat" wages. At least we've established that you have your threshold of what is acceptable increase in standard of living. Even you expect something beyond merely improved air and water quality.
Others expect that society's rules (facilitating commerce, global trade, deregulating risky financial behaviors) would lead to a proportional increase in benefit to all Americans. Not just a handful (as has been the case as wealth and income disparity grows to levels not seen since 1929.).
said by lakerfan82:the same laws apply to everyone in that example so your retort doesn't even make sense... Obviously those laws don't apply to everyone... when some Americans are more prone to losing their jobs due to offshoring labor (while other Americans give themselves bonuses for "cutting costs" through offshoring jobs).
Or, when some Americans benefited from non-regulation of financial derivatives. And then benefited from social bailout of the results of that experiment gone awry.
said by lakerfan82:You keep bringing up China and North Korea as if they're the source of all our problems. I fail to see your point. China manipulates its currency to keep its exports attractive to US consumers. China prevents its currency from floating to its true market value. This makes the price of China's manufactured products artificially low, eliminating the possibility of American manufacturing labor from competing.
The US has been afraid to tackle this issue because, for one thing, the US needs to curry favor with China to influence N. Korea.
You don't see this, nor the unfair impact it has upon some Americans, because it contradicts your simplistic worldview.
said by lakerfan82:Companies generally have 3 choices to stay competitive, ... All three choices lead to job loss and there's really not much you can do about it, even through regulation or protectionism. China's currency manipulation helps companies make the right choice for China. Not for American citizens.
The US's interest in currying favor with China is therefore borne by some Americans (those who lose jobs to offshoring manufacturing to China) more than others.
But, you can't see that because you need to distill the world down to convenient and simplistic analogies of Fred and Ernie, two neighbors sharing a beer, who would never dream of offending each other. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | 
Capital income distribution |
said by lakerfan82:the same laws apply to everyone in that example so your retort doesn't even make sense... Here's a perfect example of how you're wrong: reduced tax rates for capital income.
quote:
In 2003, the top one percent of the population received 57.5 percent of all capital income. This
was larger than in any other year examined by CBO, with its data going back to 1979. (The top
one percent consisted in 2003 of households with after-tax incomes that averaged $701,500.)
-- http://www.cbpp.org/files/1-29-06tax2.pdf
That's from the Shapiro & Friedman work I mentioned earlier. It's discussed in more detail here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1008
From the UCSC article quoted in an earlier post, the attached image is another way to look at that same point. (Source: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)
Obviously, if tax law is amended to reduce tax rates on capital income (income from interest, dividends, rents, and capital gains), and almost 60% of all such income goes to 1% of the population (and approximately 12% goes to 80% of the population), that law does not "apply to everyone" the same way.
The real irony here is that reduced capital-income taxation has always been couched in "trickle-down" semantics. By encouraging capital investment, "we'll all benefit."
Interestingly, when we start asking who's benefiting after a few decades, we're told that such questions have no meaning. That it's even tantamount to the sin of envy.
Like we weren't encouraged to sin when our greed was appealed to? ("We'll all benefit if the cost of government is shifted to ..."). | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by lakerfan82:Again, lets break it down. Lets say you have a neighbor ... Let's explore how consistently you would employ your argument.
Let's say you have a neighbor who wants to convert her home into a late-night biker bar. It would be a "complete crock" to believe you could stand in the way of your neighbor's perfect right to dispose of her property any way she wishes.
Yet, that's exactly what we do at the societal level through zoning laws and building codes.
Are you saying that because those laws do things that you'd never dream of doing to your neighbor (if you broke the relationship down to its simplest components), you oppose zoning laws and building codes?
IMO, your argument is typical, self-serving, libertarian rhetoric.
You have resorted to individual-to-individual comparisons to attack the notion that society should exist to serve the interests of all (which does involve coercion). I.e., what we do at a societal level wouldn't look "pretty" at an individual level. Therefore, it must be wrong at a societal level.
But, as expected, I doubt you would apply that criteria consistently (building codes, zoning laws, food & drug quality laws, the SEC and banking regulations). Why? Because you value one or all of those coercive social interventions in individual relationships. You just don't value the one under discussion. Therefore, you use a self-serving rhetorical device to attack it.
Food-quality is another good example. Who are you to impose upon your neighbor that they must buy food that meets your standards of quality and inspection? That would be a "complete crock!"
Yet, I doubt you would argue for an anarchy of unregulated food. Where willing buyers and sellers is paramount. Where caveat emptor is the only rule.
IMO, like your use of the term "class warfare," your distillation of this topic down to two individuals is just a cheap rhetorical device to strike an emotional chord that you're not entitled to. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. I was wondering how long it would take you to bring out the biker bar analogy, so clearly I hit a nerve. Your attempt to paint everyone who disagrees with you as a selfish fringe anarchist is tiresome. Having a society that, in your words, occasionally uses "coercive social interventions" is not an excuse for inappropriate government interventions or excessive and even oppressive taxation. And I'm sure we can debate all the live long day about what is appropriate.... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by lakerfan82:Having a society that, in your words, occasionally uses "coercive social interventions" is not an excuse for inappropriate government interventions or excessive and even oppressive taxation. I agree.
But, it's misleading to depict coercion you disagree with using examples of all coercion being wrong. It's a cheap, rhetorical device to claim a principled, moral high-ground that you don't really have.
Why don't you have it? Because you enjoy building codes, zoning laws, food- and drug-quality laws, environmental protection, the SEC and banking regulations.
All things that, if distilled down to a relationship between you and your neighbor, would look just as unattractive as you attempted to portray this topic.
If you want to disagree with the seriousness of growing wealth/income disparity, and that it should just be left to run its course, that's fine.
But, that's not what you did. You trotted out an emotionally-charged analogy that was as cheap and misleading as your flinging the "class welfare" term.
If you were that confident in your own position, you wouldn't find it necessary to revert to such sophomoric emotional devices.
And now you blame it on me for pointing out how baseless your argument was? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
3 edits | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. Real dandy trying to call me out for using cheap and misleading "emotional devices" when your entire premise is based on emotion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are trying to reason that the government should be taking more of a particular groups' income based solely on the fact that they, according to you, achieved that income on the back of a "lesser" group. All in the name of what you deem to be "fairness and equality." It doesn't get anymore emotional than that.
You take issue with the "class warfare card?" I take issue with being called selfish every time I suggest that people take a little personal responsibility for themselves instead of crying for the government to pay for everything from health care to broadband. And guess what, if you promote principles of wealth redistribution, that tends to make you sound like a socialist. So don't be offended when people play that "cheap emotive device." If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by lakerfan82:Real dandy trying to call me out for using cheap and misleading "emotional devices" when your entire premise is based on emotion. The difference is, you flung a couple of traditionally libertarian rhetorical devices that never have any meaning:
1. You dismissed this topic as "class warfare" -- as if class warfare doesn't exist.
CEOs don't ship jobs overseas (and give themselves bonuses in the process) because they like those workers. They do it because they can make money for themselves and shareholders, (who happen to be 1% of the population who owns 38% of corporate stock). Even if it means screwing their "neighbor."
We (as a society) don't lean on China's currency manipulation because it's easier to accept the benefit of China's political favor -- even though it comes at the expense of our neighbor (who can't compete against China's exports due to it's "unfree" currency.).
2. You compared this topic of wealth disparity (resulting from social policy) to an ugly relationship between two neighbors, where one illegally takes the property of the other.
The problem with that simplistic libertarian picture is that you obviously won't apply it to things like building codes, zoning laws, food- & drug-quality laws, environmental protection, the SEC or banking laws.
Those are similar "socializations" of individual, consenting relationships that we take for granted every day. You undoubtedly benefit from those things. Yet, if you used the same juvenile argument with those things, you'd have to conclude that you're doing nothing short of committing a crime against your neighbor.
said by lakerfan82:you are trying to reason that the government should be taking more of a particular groups' income based solely on the fact that they, according to you, achieved that income on the back of a "lesser" group. All in the name of what you deem to be "fairness and equality." It doesn't get anymore emotional than that. And yet, it's based upon the same principle as building codes, zoning laws, food- & drug-quality laws, environmental protection, the SEC or banking laws. You, using society to affect a social goal through your neighbor that they wouldn't freely consent to.
The problem here is your selective use of emotional pleas.
said by lakerfan82:I take issue with being called selfish every time I suggest that people take a little personal responsibility for themselves instead of crying for the government to pay for everything from health care to broadband. If you care so much about "personal responsibility," why don't you oppose zoning laws and purchase sufficient quantities of real estate to protect yourself from your neighbor's choices about how to dispose of her property?
Relying upon zoning laws simply uses society to shift your responsibility for your own property (and requirement to purchase sufficient buffers) onto your neighbor.
That's why I said you're argument was sophomoric. You try to make it sound like you have a "principled" position, when you don't. You're selectively invoking principles like libertarians usually do.
It sounds good to say "I stand for personal resonsibility, harumph!" while hoping nobody asks why you groove on zoning laws. Or, why you want to force your neighbors to accept your minimum standards for food and drug quality.
Or, why we don't hear you complaining about the wealthiest 1% of Americans benefiting the most from social creation of "fiat persons" (corporate charters) from state legislatures. A socially-created, fictional "person" to stand as the fall guy, protecting officers and investors from their personal responsibility.
It sounds like you're very selective in your emphasis on "personal responsibility." Like most people, it depends on whether you agree with government socialization.
The difference is, most people don't need to engage in the self-serving theatrics about how it's everyone else who suckles on the teet of society.
said by lakerfan82:And guess what, if you promote principles of wealth redistribution, that tends to make you sound like a socialist. So don't be offended when people play that "cheap emotive device." If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... And, don't be surprised when I ask how you're benefiting from socializations of "markets." And, why the term "socialism" applies to everyone else, not you.
I find that the "socialism" and "wealth distribution" terms are used most by those who can't defend their own positions. They need to use rhetorical devices expected to elicit a reflexive emotion. Like invoking the word "nazi" to end all rational discussion. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) I was searching for a Shapiro & Friedman study from 2006 but found an informative article at UCSC updated in 2010. It's loaded with recent data:
quote:
As you read through these numbers, please keep in mind that they are usually two or three years out of date because it takes time for one set of experts to collect the basic information and make sure it is accurate, and then still more time for another set of experts to analyze it and write their reports. It's also the case that the infamous housing bubble of the first eight years of the 21st century inflated some of the wealth numbers.
So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
-- http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
There is a very interesting section titled "The Relationship Between Wealth and Power" which shows that the top 20% of the population own 91.1% of corporate stock, with the bottom 20% owning just 8.9%.
That's a perfect example of how wealth disparity translates into real, political control of the country. Consider how corporations are treated as "legal persons" who have the same right to lobby for legislation as real, natural persons.
The top 1% of the population owns 38% of all stock. There are 208 million eligible voters in the US. That's like 2 million voters having a controlling interest in the nation's "fictional, yet legal, persons known as corporations" and controlling public policy through them.
This article is a definite keeper. Everyone should file it away for future reference. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) Comparisons of income or wealth percentiles over time are pretty much meaningless because of the dynamic of the US household. The persons included in a particular percentile one year are not the same persons in that percentile in another year Therefore, comparing the percentiles against each other is extremely unreliable.
Generally, as people get older, they move up the percentile "ladder" as well. Therefore, people who are at the bottom are there temporarily, and the same goes for those at the top.
In addition, divorce is a huge factor that rapidly changes the makeup of households, even from one year to the next. Families are smaller today than they were 35 years ago, and so even a "flat household wage" over a period of time is a "per capita wage increase" over that same time period. Immigration is another factor that changes the makeup of the overall population over time, and those immigrants tend to insert themselves in the lower percentiles, having a huge effect on the statistics.
Take a look at this little article...
»cafehayek.com/2008/04/families-and-pe.html | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) said by lakerfan82:The persons included in a particular percentile one year are not the same persons in that percentile in another year . (Chuckle). Now you're trying to imply movement renders the numbers meaningless.
In fact, what the numbers show is the direction and velocity of movement.
- We know the top 1/100th of the population quadrupled their incomes. While the average American's income remained flat.
- We know fewer people are the direct beneficiaries of capital-gains tax cuts.
- We know average Americas lost more (relative to what they had) from the recent financial meltdown compared to the top 10%. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) Actually, they are meaningless. Laugh all you want, but the fact that you failed to address the rest of my post shows you don't have much to stand on. If someone is at the top percentile for only one year, he gained a significant amount of wealth and then lost it very quickly.
When the dynamic of the population continues to change (households are smaller now than in the 70s), but the population continues to grow, the numbers will look scarier than they actually are. Look at the per capita numbers instead of the household numbers. Or at the very least, examine households of similar size over a period of time. If you want to factor out more of the dynamics, look at the numbers for a race like blacks that have very little immigration affecting their statics. Looking at their poverty rate, you will see that blacks in general are better off than they were 35 years ago. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) said by lakerfan82:When the dynamic of the population continues to change (households are smaller now than in the 70s), but the population continues to grow, the numbers will look scarier than they actually are. Why? How is the population growing any different than it did in the 50s and 60s?
What the distribution of wealth shows is that more people are growing more slowly on the curve of wealth and income. Slower than 30 years ago.
You've tried to dismiss this by saying various comforts of life are better, and cheaper than they were. But, that applies to those who have more income and wealth to buy those things.
You've also admitted that even you would expect that increased standard of living to be higher than a token improvement. Indicating that even you would have expected a level of benefit in return for reducing taxes (the cost of our society)on the wealthy.
You've tried to say the growing disparity of wealth doesn't mean anything because people move from the bottom 10% to the top 10% (and vice versa).
But, the disparity numbers show that movement isn't happening like it did 30 years ago. It just tends to be the top 10% gaining a higher share of wealth and income. Not that share going to the next lower 10%.
| |
| | | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) said by amigo_boy: Why? How is the population growing any different than it did in the 50s and 60s? Households are smaller now than they were in the 50's and 60's. The household statistic is the pillar of your argument and it has changed dramatically. You're not comparing apples to apples. That's why I continue to suggest that you find per capita numbers, but that doesn't fit your narrative. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) said by lakerfan82:said by amigo_boy: Why? How is the population growing any different than it did in the 50s and 60s? Households are smaller now than they were in the 50's and 60's. The household statistic is the pillar of your argument and it has changed dramatically. 1. That would apply to the wealthiest households too.
2. Population growth rate has been declining. Thus reducing the rate (and number) of new entrants to "households," who would naturally fall into the lower quintile of wealth and income (as new entrants). | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) That is until you remember immigrants.... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) said by lakerfan82:That is until you remember immigrants.... The population's growth rate is slowing, including immigrants. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
2 edits | Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) Well I guess you'll have to show me the per capita numbers then. With the household size changing and the growth rate slowing, we're clearly not comparing apples to apples. Anyhow, other than the name calling from both sides, its been a pleasure debating you, but neither of us is going to convince the other of our opinion... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) said by lakerfan82:Well I guess you'll have to show me the per capita numbers then. With the household size changing and the growth rate slowing, were clearly not comparing apples to apples. Maybe you should produce the numbers?
You're the one saying population growth is rising (when it's dropping).
Or, that immigration is rising (which would have little bearing on wealth of new "households," which would be challenged for wealth under any circumstance.).
Or, that minorities (immigrants) both skew the disparity numbers downward (being poor, new households) and upward (likely to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps.").
Or, that reduced household size affects the non-wealthy than the wealthy.
You're basically tossing a lot of suggestions without any proof.
One thing I've seen is this graph, showing income growth by race:
image
(Source: »www.declineoftheempire.com/2010/···ing.html)
It doesn't show what you suggest.
From what I've seen, immigration as a percentage of population growth has increased by about 10-15%. But, that's not much different than the growth over the 30 years prior to 1970.
And, a growth in that kind of "new households" shouldn't be much different than citizens creating new households (from scratch). In fact, there are plenty of relatively wealthy immigrants. Doctors, tech workers, etc.
I just see you using a shotgun approach. Smaller households (but they exist across the spectrum). New households (but their slowing). New immigrants (but, they aren't growing that rapidly, and are often not poor like the youthful new household that you imply). New immigrants skew it both downwards and upwards.
Even if you eliminate the bottom quintile, the top 10% of the population has benefited more from policy changes over the past 30 years than the remaining population. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by lakerfan82:Looking at their poverty rate, you will see that blacks in general are better off than they were 35 years ago. That's not saying much. Due to social programs (such as EEOC), you'd expect wealth and income to improve for minorities, the women and handicapped.
But, it was far from keeping pace with the top 1% whose incomes doubled (and the top 1/100th of 1% whose incomes quadrupled) in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Nothing changes the fact that share of income and wealth for average Americans has remained flat, or grown slightly. If minority and women improved, it was at the expense of the average American's growth potential. Not that those minorities were taking jobs and capital from the CEOs and wealthy.
BTW: Take a look at that UCSC article I posted. It has a lovely graphic of wealth disparity by race among median income earners. It casts your argument in the proper light. (Blacks and Hispanics have a median net worth of $9k while whites earn $143k).
That helps explain how the average American's wage remained flat for 30 years, minorities grew, and the ultra wealthy quadrupled.
You're essentially referring to crumbs as a defense against significant growth in disparity of wealth and income across all society. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wealth, Income, and Power (who rules America?) said by amigo_boy:BTW: Take a look at that UCSC article I posted. It has a lovely graphic of wealth disparity by race among median income earners. It casts your argument in the proper light. (Blacks and Hispanics have a median net worth of $9k while whites earn $143k). That helps explain how the average American's wage remained flat for 30 years, minorities grew, and the ultra wealthy quadrupled. Exactly, and why are minorities growing? A lot of it has to do with immigration. These are the same immigrants who are inserting themselves at the bottom of the percentile, affecting the statistics dramatically. The good news is, these people tend to pull themselves out of the bottom percentile in a very short time, but new immigrants continue to replace them at the bottom... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by lakerfan82:Generally, as people get older, they move up the percentile "ladder" as well. Which tends to work against your own argument. Since the population is aging (so-called "baby boomers"), we'd expect to see wealth and income rising across the entire spectrum. Not flat for the average American, and quadrupled by the top 1/100th of 1% of the population.
I'm looking at Wolfe's study and your own argument disproves your point.
Table 12 shows the "ladder" you speak of as losing ground across all age categories from 1983 to 2007.
Keep in mind that the 2007 numbers will show inflated due to the real-estate bubble. According to the UCSC paper, we should expect to see a huge drop in wealth for average Americans, disproportionate to the top-10% of wealth holders.
You also said African American incomes have increased, somehow affecting the average American's stagnate income since the 1970s.
But, Table 11 doesn't bear that out. Non-hispanic white median income grew 9.6%. Hispanics grew 15.8%. African Americans grew 18%. Yet, their incomes are nearly 30% lower than whites.
Slthough that's a positive, it's a negative for whites compared to the predominately white top-10% of the population. If we excluded non-whites, average white workers would have actually lost income instead of merely being flat.
So, I'm not clear how minorities improving their position (through EEOC, civil rights improvements, etc.) proves your point that everyone has benefited. It tends to prove that the vast majority (white middle class) didn't. That it's actually worse than it appears with minorities added to the "average American" statistic. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by lakerfan82:Generally, as people get older, they move up the percentile "ladder" as well. Therefore, people who are at the bottom are there temporarily, and the same goes for those at the top. Another data point which disproves your theory is how share of capital income (income based upon accumulated wealth) is dropping for everyone except the highest quintile. (See Shapiro & Friedman, Table 1.).
This is undeniable because Wollf's Table 13 presents composition of wealth by age class. It shows that the older an individual becomes, the more stocks and bonds they own.
If the aging population's amassed wealth were significant (compared to the wealthiest 10%), we'd expect to see the middle or fourth quintile's share of capital income (gains from dividends, interest, etc.) rising. But, we don't.
It may be rising. But, not as fast as the top quintile. And, certainly not as fast as the top 10% (or 1%) of wealthiest individuals.
said by lakerfan82:Families are smaller today than they were 35 years ago, Doesn't that work against your argument too? Fewer mouths to feed?
The number of people living alone has risen. That could prove your point. But, you'd have to show that that phenomenon is unique to the average American, and doesn't apply to the wealthiest.
I'm still puzzled by your averring to increases in minority wealth over the past 35 years. That was a direct result of righting an historic wrong, which often involved imposing a wrong on innocent people. (It wasn't the result of letting the wealthiest people to keep more of their money in the hopes that their capital investments would benefit everyone.).
For example: Firemen who were denied promotions so minorities could advance. Students were denied admission to colleges they qualified for, giving a seat to a less qualified minority student.
That was the advancement of a social goal, rectifying a history of wrong (such as refusing to lend to minorities, through the use of racial "red lining", and thus denying minorities the ability own real estate).
That's not exactly the kind of "trickle down" benefit people were led to believe would occur when they were talked into reducing taxation on the wealthiest individuals.
Denying advancement to an average American (through the use of racial quotas) has a much more direct impact on the average American than someone who is a CEO or earns a majority of their income from capital investments (i.e., the group whose wealth has increased vastly compared to the average American). | |
|
| | | | | |
4 edits | said by amigo_boy:said by lakerfan82:Again, you can say that out of every dollar, group A received X% and group B only received X/4%, but if there are significantly more dollars in the system (which is the case), group B's status can still improve. How would the status improve when their inflation-adjusted incomes have remain flat or dropped? I actually went back and did the math to see if your statement was true or not. The math shows that for the "bottom 80%", per capita incomes have actually increased 34% from 1982 to 2006 (I chose those years because those are the years I had data for).
In order to determine the distribution of income, I used Table 6 from the UCSC article you sited (»sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri···lth.html ). Here are the numbers for the years 1982 and 2006:
Table 6: Distribution of income in the United States, 1982-2006
Income of Bottom 80 percent
1982: 48.1%
2006: 38.6%
I also determined the Real (Inflation adjusted) GDP (also known as Gross Domestic Income) for the years 1982 and 2006 (»www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354 ):
Real GDP (In year 2000 Dollars):
Q1-1982: $5,177.1 Billion
Q1-2006: $11,217.3 Billion
The populations for the years 1982 and 2006 (»www.infoplease.com/year/1982.htm···zQfzb8JN ):
1982: 231.7 Million
2006: 300 Million
In order to calculate the per capita income for the "bottom 80%," I did the following:
I multiplied the % share of income for the bottom 80% by the total GDP to determine the total dollar amount of income for the bottom 80%.
For 1982: .481 X $5,177.1 Billion = $2,490.2 Billion total income
For 2006: .386 X $11,217.3 Billion = $4,329.9 Billion total income
I then multiplied the total population by 80% to determine the number of people in the bottom 80%
For 1982: 231.7 Million X 0.80 = 185.36 Million
For 2006: 300 Million X 0.80 = 240 Million
I then multiplied the total income by the population (of the 80%) to determine the per capita income of the bottom 80%.
For 1982: $2,490.2 Billion / 185.36 Million = $13,434.3 in year 2000 dollars.
For 2006: $4,329.9 Billion / 240 Million = $18,041.25 in year 2000 dollars.
That is a 34.2% increase from 1982 to 2006 in year 2000 dollars!
Feel free to check my math for errors...
So, like I said before, while our "share" of pie has decreased from 1982 to 2006 (down by 10%), we are getting significantly more pie because the overall size of the pie (up 116%) has increased so much. If the question is, "Are the bottom 80% better off in 2006 than they were in 1982?" Then the answer is absolutely yes... | |
| | | | | | | |
See 11 replies to this post |
| | jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | i don't care what others are earning and i don't look to the gov't to steal from them if they are earning "too much"...and where are these absurd ideas of "fair share" coming from - idiot socialist teachers in schools....my idea of "fair share" is pay 10% of income up to, say, $1,000,000 and that's it...and after you have contributed your $100,000 to gov't, you have done more than your "fair share"....the problem is that some people think that they are somehow entitled to others' earnings when they aren't... | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by jfd15:and where are these absurd ideas of "fair share" coming from Likely from the people who sold us on reducing taxes on the wealthy. They used a "collective" argument, that "we'll all benefit" by the wealthy investing their capital.
So, it's perfectly natural to ask "how" we're all benefiting. If, as Ronald Reagan asked in 1981: "are you better off than you were a few years ago?"
I think it's funny how collective, national-interest arguments are selectively used. Globalism is supposed to "benefit us all." But, the result is one segment of society benefiting much less (by losing their jobs to foreign workers who aren't forced to pay for the standard of living American workers are). And, executives giving themselves bonuses for offshoring jobs and "cutting costs."
When that's pointed out, and that perhaps those who benefit the most from globalism shoulder a greater portion of the cost of our standard of living, suddenly we hear libertarian arguments about how what the individual has is entirely a result of their own effort. There is no "we all..."
said by jfd15:the problem is that some people think that they are somehow entitled to others' earnings when they aren't... But, that's what you engage in when you benefit from building codes and zoning laws. You use government to impose your wishes on people who wouldn't freely choose the way you want them to. This adds to the expense of what willing buyers and sellers might negotiate freely amongst themselves.
For example, let's say your neighbor wants to convert her property into a late-night biker bar. In a non-socialized, libertarian world, you would be required to purchase sufficient property to protect your interest in your own property against your neighbor's interest in her own property.
By using zoning laws, you impose your interests onto your neighbor, limiting her perfect enjoyment of her property for the benefit of your enjoyment of your own (and a cheaper price than you would have paid if you had to buy sufficient buffer zones).
Essentially you're selectively engaging in the "everyone else is a socialist! Not me!"
So, the same thing happens with the economy. Some people benefit through using government to facilitate foreign commerce. Others suffer (losing their jobs because they can't compete against people who use their gutters as sewers, or pimp their 14-year-old daughters to supplement the family income.).
When anyone objects to this disparate benefit of what Adam Smith referred to as a "political economy," you say it's "socialism." But, it's just as "socialist" as dozens of things you enjoy.
If you'd really get rid of things like zoning laws, building codes, environmental protection, the SEC and banking regulations, or food- and drug-quality laws (because they essentially transfer the wealth of one to another by forcing "willing buyers and sellers" to behave in ways they wouldn't freely choose), then you're just part of the irrelevant fringe. You're views on this nation's growing wealth disparity should be considered in that light.
If you wouldn't get rid of those things, then you're just flinging the "socialism" term for emotional effect. No different than what you accuse others of doing. | |
|
| | | | jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. eh, my name isn't "hoss"....and people need to stop looking outside themselves for the solutions to their problems....there's always someone else to point the finger at, "it's Reagan's fault" or "Bush's fault" blah blah blah...no more likely it their own fault because they didn't pay attn in school and have no skills that anyone needs...that's all...its more fun to waste time on video games or watching tv or texting all day on their iphone than it is to actually learn something... | |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Mr Matt: Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth. Here are the CORRECT numbers: 10% of the population controls 30% of the income - That was a tricky switch of terms (from "wealth" to "income"). When the wealthiest individuals earn their income from investing their wealth, controlling 30% of the national income signifies something far larger about the disparity of national wealth used to control that income.
There's no way to spin as positive our growing disparity of either wealth or income.
We were told 30 years ago that shifting the tax burden away from the wealthiest individuals would result in "trickle-down" benefit to all.
Instead, the average American's inflation-adjusted income has declined while the top 10% has grown (the top 1% at obscene rates of growth).
This trend of income inequality does not portend greatness. See:
(Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/189649-wealth-disparities-in-u-s-approaching-1920s-levels)
See also the Gini index which shows the same trend. And, worse, that we are increasingly having more in common with Mexico, Brazil and Russia.[1] Nations where individuals have the vote, but real political power is held by the wealthy elite.
The same trend is seen in wealth disparity (not merely income disparity):
quote:
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[14]
According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1]
-- »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributi···d_States
quote:
Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."[2]
-- »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_ine···d_States
These trends can only be worsening when the financial industry was bailed out (so what amounted to "bets" could be paid off). And, at the same time, record numbers of Americans have lost jobs, downgraded to poor jobs.
There's nothing positive about this.
Note to the "it's mine, I wanna keep it" crowd: reduced disparity doesn't equal "equality." Nobody of any significance wants perfect "equality." It's just a matter of how unequal we can be without undermining a sense that this nation exists to benefit everyone.
For example: America's exports are decimated by China's manipulated currency. The result is American jobs lost. We won't retaliate against China because we need China to keep North Korea in line.
The result? Common Americans are paying for the nation's strategic defense. What kind of "wealth transfer" is that? Why shouldn't those who's incomes are growing pay more to offset the effect of low-level Americans losing their jobs as a result of unfair trade? Trade that remains unfair because "we" have a national interest in allowing it to continue?
[1] For Russia's Gini value, see here. | |
| | | | Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. We are turning into a third world country, where the aristocrats rule, and the poor live in slums. We are loosing the middle class as a result of corporate and millionaire greed. Soon we will have small opulent walled and gated areas, surrounded by vast slums, just like India and Venezuela. | |
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by viperlmw:We are turning into a third world country, where the aristocrats rule, and the poor live in slums. We are loosing the middle class as a result of corporate and millionaire greed. Soon we will have small opulent walled and gated areas, surrounded by vast slums, just like India and Venezuela. What seems odd to me is how Americans, even those who are victims of growing economic/financial disparity, have an almost hero-worship notion of "self made" wealth.
The growing disparity of wealth is a direct consequence of social policy. Even Adam Smith recognized that "economies" don't exist in a vacuum. He called it a "political economy."
Average workers (including well-educated tech workers) lose jobs as a result of society intervention in global trade -- ironing out "free trade agreements" that force western norms of commerce upon signatories. Essentially leveling the playing field for businesses who were already free to engage in trade before those "agreements." But, those agreements do not level the playing field for workers. Americans are still forced to pay for sewers, water treatment, animal welfare, child labor protection, and environmental protection. Then allowed to compete against those who don't.
Average Americans also lose their jobs as a result of national defense concerns. China artificially pegs its Yuan to the US Dollar. If the Yuan were allowed to float to it's real market value it would destroy China's export-based economy (which was built through the destruction of America's jobs).
Our society not only turns a blind eye to that currency manipulation, we give China our coveted "Most Favored Nation" status.
Why? Because China is North Korea's only ally. We need China to lean on NK.
So, now we have average Americans bearing an inordinate cost of national security(!).
And then, when we ask if the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of the cost of our society, we're met with screaming about "socailsim" -- often from the same average worker who's seen a steady decline in their income, standard of living, etc.
The wealthiest Americans have seen their wealth rise as a result of
- Reducing taxes and regulations.
- Not regulating the over-the-counter derivative market in 1997, and prohibiting states from regulating Credit Default Swaps (as insurance) in 2001.
- Repealing Glass-Steagall (a post-Depression safeguard against excessive banking speculation with socially-gauranteed depositor money) in 1999.
- Bailing out the wealthiest Americans after all those deregulatory acts didn't work out. (It was those with the most accumulated wealth who would have lost the most if our financial system collapsed. They depended on that system paying them back.).
A perfect example of how we generally are not "self made" is Forbes list of the 75 wealthiest individuals in all recorded history.
Of those 75, fourteen (a whopping 20%) were born in one country, within the same 10 years. They were Americans born between 1831 and 1840. One decade, in one country, which coincided with the greatest abundance of natural wealth accrued through the social policy of "Manifest Destiny." (A religious excuse to remove Native Americans from their lands.).
If you were born in 1831-1840, into a generation that is about to finalize the "indian question," (using a social premise that God wants you to have their stuff) you had more opportunity than those who live today under the premise that it's "free trade" to force you to pay for a high standard of living, and then "allow" you to compete with those who don't (after spending years negotiating "free trade" agreements to benefit financial and commercial markets).
A really good examination of how "self made" is mostly a myth is Outliers: The Story of Success (Gladwell). I highly recommend it.
To me, it's amazing how average Americans are losing ground and yet cling to a near-cultish worship of "self-made wealth." Adam Smith fingered "the disposition to admire, and to almost worship, the rich and powerful," as "the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." | |
|
| | | Enough blame to go around:
1) Consumers - looking for the best and cheapest price; in order for US companies to compete with foreign importing companies, they had to either increase productivity in the US or move manufacturing to a foreign country.
2) Unions - I grew up in an area that had several manufacturing electronic companies (Black&Decker, MDS, Burroughs, GE, etc). Most have gone under or moved to another country). At GE radio division, the union struck for a third time in a row in the 1970's. Then during their next GE-Union contract meeting, GE told them that they cannot compete for the wages/benefits they wanted and if they don't come back to work within 2 weeks, they will close the factory.... They didn't go back and GE closed the factory. Then built a facility in Mexico and moved all the equipment there. Same thing happened with Burroughs, except they moved to TN....no union there.
3) Class warfare - Politicians like to split and conquer. Get the public to blame their woes on others and not look to themselves. It's funny how people mention President Reagan, but never President Kennedy... who cut/reduced taxes in the same way (I guess public education has gone downhill in the last 40 years  ).
4) Politicians - Get a majority sucking on the gov't tit and they'll have it made! We're almost there, with over 40% of people not paying any income tax and many getting cash too. Built-in majority...they just need to say their opponent will reduce their gov't subsides. Politicians that say they're for smaller gov't but turn around and spend like crazy. Politicians ignore the US Constitution and create new laws/rules that violate it.
5) Voters - everyone want something for nothing, or we'll get the other guy to pay, those evil rich, etc. | |
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. said by Anon2010 :
Enough blame to go around: I agree. I just wanted to point out that the problem of wealth and income disparity exists, and it's reached bad levels. It may be worse than we're aware of because the statistics for the past 2 years haven't arrived and been analyzed yet. One analysis says the last 2 years have made the problem much worse.
I would add to your list the growth of CEO pay from 33 times the average worker's pay in 1977 to 300 times the average in the year 2000. (Some sources say 500 times the average.).
That (as well as some of yours) is a perfect example of how public attitudes have changed. Apathy? Hero-worship of the wealthy? (Something Adam Smith called the root of corruption.). Brainwashing by the rhetoric behind three decades of deregulatory politics?
In the early '50s and '60s, if a CEO earned 300 to 500 times the average worker, there would have been a national (if not global) outrage and boycott of that business. It would have been viewed as shameless as Goldman Sachs paying record bonuses just months after being bailed out with taxpayer money.
So, there's definitely a change in public attitudes. IMO, that's not a good thing. It's manifested not only in growing disparity in the American Dream. It's also seen in voter apathy. Diminished work ethic. A growing sense of irresponsibility (it's someone else's responsibility to fix problems).
Many of your examples touched on the market forces driving manufacturing to cheap labor. But, that doesn't address the non-market forces that inflate US labor. Forcing Americans to pay for sewers, air and water quality, animal welfare and a variety of other things. Then "allowing" them to compete against people who aren't forced to pay for those things.
That's not a "free market." (Just like China manipulating its currency to make its exports artificially cheap.). If we have a national interest in the things mentioned above, then we should have a national interest in the Americans we force to pay for them. We should have a national interest in the burden we place on them, and how it's being abused to their detriment.
said by Anon2010 :
with over 40% of people not paying any income tax
Most people who use that statistic do so to prove that a large segment of society is getting off easy.
The problem is: 60% of the 40% earn less than $20k per year.
That's exactly the problem we're discussing here. The result of three decades of growing wealth/income disparity. Three decades offshoring American jobs through a charade of "free-market" competition (after the government brokered "free trade" agreements to improve the position of financial and commercial interests, at the expense labor interests).
That "40% pay no taxes" is the chicken coming home to roost. | |
|
| |
|
·
·
