Post: #1

Another interesting article about the "1%":

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/income-do...d=14817561

The more of these articles I read, the more I realize that in the future everyone in America will either be poor or rich, with no in between.

Post: #2

Everyone's real incomes grew over that same time period. I'm not sure why it is an issue (other than wealth and class envy) that a certain corhort experiences greater gains than another as long as everyone's boat is rising.

What the article and other literature on the subject don't report is that the same people who make up the 1% one given year often aren't the same people who make up the 1% the next. Likewise, people in every income quintile have income mobility.

Post: #3

(10-27-2011 09:53 AM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  Everyone's real incomes grew over that same time period. I'm not sure why it is an issue (other than wealth and class envy) that a certain corhort experiences greater gains than another as long as everyone's boat is rising.

No they haven't.

"If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000."

Post: #4

(10-27-2011 10:05 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 09:53 AM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  Everyone's real incomes grew over that same time period. I'm not sure why it is an issue (other than wealth and class envy) that a certain corhort experiences greater gains than another as long as everyone's boat is rising.

No they haven't.

"If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000."

That is a different statement. "Keeping pace with the economy" is quite different than keeping pace with inflation.

In real terms - in inflation-adjusted terms - household income at all income quintiles has increased. Granted, it has increased a lot more at the top of the spectrum. But it has increased. Quality of life (at least materially) has increased for everyone. This counters a widespread myth pushed by liberals that the lower classes have stagnated in the past 30 years. They haven't.

Post: #5

(10-27-2011 10:55 AM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 10:05 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 09:53 AM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  Everyone's real incomes grew over that same time period. I'm not sure why it is an issue (other than wealth and class envy) that a certain corhort experiences greater gains than another as long as everyone's boat is rising.

No they haven't.

"If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000."

That is a different statement. "Keeping pace with the economy" is quite different than keeping pace with inflation.

In real terms - in inflation-adjusted terms - household income at all income quintiles has increased. Granted, it has increased a lot more at the top of the spectrum. But it has increased. Quality of life (at least materially) has increased for everyone. This counters a widespread myth pushed by liberals that the lower classes have stagnated in the past 30 years. They haven't.

And all of the objective data says precisely the opposite.

Post: #6

(10-27-2011 10:59 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 10:55 AM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 10:05 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 09:53 AM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  Everyone's real incomes grew over that same time period. I'm not sure why it is an issue (other than wealth and class envy) that a certain corhort experiences greater gains than another as long as everyone's boat is rising.

No they haven't.

"If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000."

That is a different statement. "Keeping pace with the economy" is quite different than keeping pace with inflation.

In real terms - in inflation-adjusted terms - household income at all income quintiles has increased. Granted, it has increased a lot more at the top of the spectrum. But it has increased. Quality of life (at least materially) has increased for everyone. This counters a widespread myth pushed by liberals that the lower classes have stagnated in the past 30 years. They haven't.

And all of the objective data says precisely the opposite.

No it doesn't. The piece that was linked to here came from a Congressional Budget Office report. A report full of objective data that is backed up by other reports full of objective data.

If you disagree then you'll have to come up with something disproving that household income at these class levels has fallen over this time period.

Post: #7

From a bastion of socialism:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts...twenties-1

Post: #8

(10-27-2011 11:11 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  From a bastion of socialism:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts...twenties-1

That didn't even address the question at hand and most of the charts stop at 2005-06 anyway. I stated that real incomes and material wealth have risen for all classes over the past ~ 30 years. Your link didn't touch on that specific issue.

Post: #9

(10-27-2011 11:36 AM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 11:11 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  From a bastion of socialism:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts...twenties-1

That didn't even address the question at hand and most of the charts stop at 2005-06 anyway. I stated that real incomes and material wealth have risen for all classes over the past ~ 30 years. Your link didn't touch on that specific issue.

You are, again, factually wrong.

"Wealth" only increased because of access to credit. I put the iPad 2 on a credit card. Bought a home on credit, and leveraged the home with a home equity loan.

Credit is not wealth.

Ergo, wealth did not increase.

Post: #10

(10-27-2011 02:24 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 11:36 AM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 11:11 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  From a bastion of socialism:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts...twenties-1

That didn't even address the question at hand and most of the charts stop at 2005-06 anyway. I stated that real incomes and material wealth have risen for all classes over the past ~ 30 years. Your link didn't touch on that specific issue.

You are, again, factually wrong.

"Wealth" only increased because of access to credit. I put the iPad 2 on a credit card. Bought a home on credit, and leveraged the home with a home equity loan.

Credit is not wealth.

Ergo, wealth did not increase.

Correction: material well-being. Although your saying that doesn't mean that wealth hasn't also increased. We'd have to look that up. Either way, that isn't the argument being made here. Real income has increased for all.

Also, Mike, I've responded to your misguided argument about the causes of the student debt bubble over at the "Thank you Obama" thread. Interested to see your response.

Post: #11

(10-27-2011 10:05 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 09:53 AM)G.L.Piggy Wrote:  Everyone's real incomes grew over that same time period. I'm not sure why it is an issue (other than wealth and class envy) that a certain corhort experiences greater gains than another as long as everyone's boat is rising.

No they haven't.

"If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000."

Which is about the time female workforce participation started to sky rocket.

Nothing has had a bigger impact on inflation and downward pressure on wages than women entering the workforce. The consumer base grew dramatically, the workforce grew and it eased supply side problems with labour allowing wages to remain lower. Once global markets opened, it made the situation worse.

The harder you push for an egalitarian society, the harder reality pushes back.

Post: #12

(10-27-2011 02:24 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  You are, again, factually wrong.

"Wealth" only increased because of access to credit. I put the iPad 2 on a credit card. Bought a home on credit, and leveraged the home with a home equity loan.

Credit is not wealth.

Ergo, wealth did not increase.

And how the hell do you think the wealthy operate? Out of a savings account? Again, this is a very simple minded view dude.

Clintons administration tried to provide the middle class and the poor with access to easy credit. They blew it on houses, cars, holidays and electronics. The GFC is the result of the poor and middle class spending themselves into oblivion, nothing else. If they could have serviced their debts the house of cards would have never come crashing down.

There is no global conspiracy here to exploit the poor and middle class. 99% of people are just that average or below average.

Just like you get Alphas in the mating game, so to you get Alphas in the world of business and finance. Asking for measures to curtail their dominance is no different to feminists demanding different rules to cater to women or minority groups demanding affirmative action.

Welcome to the wonderful world of survival of the fittest. Just like you have previously stated how you take advantage of what feminism has done to society to get your dick wet, so to will others take advantage of retarded bureaucrats.

You are an economic beta. Either try to improve your lot or make the most of your situation, but tearing down the economic alphas is not going to make your richer.

Post: #13

So how do you become an economic alpha?

Post: #14

(10-28-2011 05:24 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 02:24 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  You are, again, factually wrong.

"Wealth" only increased because of access to credit. I put the iPad 2 on a credit card. Bought a home on credit, and leveraged the home with a home equity loan.

Credit is not wealth.

Ergo, wealth did not increase.

And how the hell do you think the wealthy operate? Out of a savings account? Again, this is a very simple minded view dude.

Clintons administration tried to provide the middle class and the poor with access to easy credit. They blew it on houses, cars, holidays and electronics. The GFC is the result of the poor and middle class spending themselves into oblivion, nothing else. If they could have serviced their debts the house of cards would have never come crashing down.

There is no global conspiracy here to exploit the poor and middle class. 99% of people are just that average or below average.

Just like you get Alphas in the mating game, so to you get Alphas in the world of business and finance. Asking for measures to curtail their dominance is no different to feminists demanding different rules to cater to women or minority groups demanding affirmative action.

Welcome to the wonderful world of survival of the fittest. Just like you have previously stated how you take advantage of what feminism has done to society to get your dick wet, so to will others take advantage of retarded bureaucrats.

You are an economic beta. Either try to improve your lot or make the most of your situation, but tearing down the economic alphas is not going to make your richer.

Great rant for the friendly crowd at the pub.
Calling for a return to the Robber Baron era...

Post: #15

(10-28-2011 05:24 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 02:24 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  You are, again, factually wrong.

"Wealth" only increased because of access to credit. I put the iPad 2 on a credit card. Bought a home on credit, and leveraged the home with a home equity loan.

Credit is not wealth.

Ergo, wealth did not increase.

Just like you get Alphas in the mating game, so to you get Alphas in the world of business and finance. Asking for measures to curtail their dominance is no different to feminists demanding different rules to cater to women or minority groups demanding affirmative action.

Welcome to the wonderful world of survival of the fittest.

They are so supremely fit/Alpha, they needed a bailout to stay alive

Post: #16

(10-28-2011 11:32 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 05:24 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 02:24 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  You are, again, factually wrong.

"Wealth" only increased because of access to credit. I put the iPad 2 on a credit card. Bought a home on credit, and leveraged the home with a home equity loan.

Credit is not wealth.

Ergo, wealth did not increase.

Just like you get Alphas in the mating game, so to you get Alphas in the world of business and finance. Asking for measures to curtail their dominance is no different to feminists demanding different rules to cater to women or minority groups demanding affirmative action.

Welcome to the wonderful world of survival of the fittest.

They are so supremely fit/Alpha, they needed a bailout to stay alive

Lol, of course that bail out was not to keep everyone in a job was it? It was not done to stave off a depression was it? Is that what you would have preferred? A depression?

I just love the assumption that you support the idea of bailouts if you happen to believe the redistribution of wealth is a bad thing.

(see what I did there?)

I would have let the banks fail, although you still would have had the public on the streets blaming the banks and wealthy for their predicament. No one held a gun to anyones head and forced them to spend themselves into oblivion, but they did it anyway didnt they? All walked into their local banks and borrowed massive amounts, acting like greedy pigs at a trough.

Growing income disparity is a worldwide thing and its being seen even in socialist countries like Australia and Sweden where its actually worse. High taxes and strict taxation law have not stopped it, nor has the vast amount of money plowed into training, small business development or welfare staved it.

The industrialisation of the 3rd world has create competition for a workforce that has almost doubled in size when women entered the workforce en masse in the 70's. There is more to it than just simple exploitation.

Bottom line is that you yanks have made a few mistakes along the way, but I live in the socialist utopia half of you guys are calling for. If it was not for our vast natural resources and very small population, Australia would be fucked. You simply do not appreciate how effective American capitalism has been in comparison to everything else. Its not perfect, but given the large population there is no better way.

America is going left and you are all going to get a nice taste of what the alternatives are. Dont worry, the average voter is an idiot and the average politician is a populist. You will get what you want. Ironically, you cant even see that the mess you are in right now is the result of social interference in the first place (deregulation to privatise the supply of housing and easy credit to the poor and middle class) nor can you see how far left you have gone since the 80's.

The further left you go, the greater the gap between rich and poor will grow. Regulation is a wet dream for an established capitalist because regulation raises the barrier to entry for small business and competition.

Here, look at the similarity between the USA and Sweden. Bare in mind that this is a country with a very small population, vast natural resources and diverse, developing economies right on its doorstep. And to make matters worse, the socialist utopia that is Sweden has more than 50% of its GDP spend coming from government!

Post: #17

(10-26-2011 12:58 PM)Easy E Wrote:  The more of these articles I read, the more I realize that in the future everyone in America will either be poor or rich, with no in between.

Yes and no. Part of what's going on here is owing to the fact that there is a lower bound, $0, to income, but no upper bound. So, yeah, the rich keep getting richer, while the poor stay the same. That's what you'd expect to happen as a society gets richer. Imagine a society where the richest man has a million dollars and the poorest man has nothing. Now come back five years later and you'll find a new richest man, he has two million dollars. The poorest guy, whoever he is, still has nothing.

I do agree that we're headed towards an increasingly bifurcated society, but part of that has to do with the fact that we're becoming more and more of a meritocracy. I'll oversimplify to make my point. It used to be that rich kids went to the Ivies and ran the world; middle class kids went to state schools and became local businessman, lawyers, clergy, etc.; and poor kids went into trades. Now we have a system where the smartest kids from all walks of life have a shot at the big leagues.

The smartest kids from all over leave their communities, go to good schools, get fancy jobs, marry their peers and have smart kids and send those kids to the best schools. Pair that with the fact that changes in the economy mean that U.S. just doesn't produce the kind of low-skilled, decent-paying jobs that it used to and you have a recipe for some real trouble going forward. Especially, considering that everything the government will try to do to help, will most likely end up making things worse.

Like the old Chinese saying goes, "may you live in interesting times."

Post: #18

(10-28-2011 12:49 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 11:32 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 05:24 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 02:24 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  You are, again, factually wrong.

"Wealth" only increased because of access to credit. I put the iPad 2 on a credit card. Bought a home on credit, and leveraged the home with a home equity loan.

Credit is not wealth.

Ergo, wealth did not increase.

Just like you get Alphas in the mating game, so to you get Alphas in the world of business and finance. Asking for measures to curtail their dominance is no different to feminists demanding different rules to cater to women or minority groups demanding affirmative action.

Welcome to the wonderful world of survival of the fittest.

They are so supremely fit/Alpha, they needed a bailout to stay alive

I just love the assumption that you support the idea of bailouts if you happen to believe the redistribution of wealth is a bad thing.

(see what I did there?)

That wasn't the assumption. It only showed that your Darwin, survival of the fittest pitch doesn't hold water.

Post: #19

The 1% 's favourite song! with Roosh playing guitar :

Post: #20

here's an interesting article on 7 reasons why Obama is wrong on Income Inequality.

It's a good read but here's a summary blurb:"a) income inequality has increased somewhat in recent decades, but not exploded; b) that increase is natural given technology and globalization; c) incomes could have risen faster with a better educated workforce (that also didn’t have to compete with an influx of workers from Asia), but did O.K.; d) we need to boost education to keep up with advancing technology and productivity; e) the past decade was one of slow growth followed by a nasty recession. No argument there. Looking forward, America will need a pro-growth tax system, smarter regulation and far better human capital (helped by higher teacher pay in exchange for eliminating tenure, more skilled immigration, etc.). That way, incomes won’t just be more equal, they’ll be growing."

Harry is correct about women entering the workplace. Simple law of supply and demand, double the supply of available workers, wages go down. Add to that todays illegals working under the table and you have wage supression on the lower incomes. I just read an article by Heartiste that also referenced women voting more leftist, voting in feminization in the workplace, etc.

It should be noted that since 2007 the top 1% have lost something like 20% compared to 11% for most. It seems there is some correction going on. Those who made their gains on easy credit have lost a larger percentage than those that didn't.

Post: #21

(10-27-2011 10:05 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  That wasn't the assumption. It only showed that your Darwin, survival of the fittest pitch doesn't hold water.

Non stop one liners and off the cuff remarks which you take no time to substantiate. The arrogance it conveys might not be far off the mark with you, and its pointless even trying to debate anything with you. Maybe this is a representation of your work ethic too.

1) Female participation in the workforce rocketed in the 70's.
2) Industrialisation of Asia and South America gained momentum in the 90's.

Wages wont increase when there is no shortage of labour. Female participation also led to massive asset inflation which has eroded wealth.

Those are facts.

Now either look to open a business of your own or skill up in areas where you will be paid well. If you cant do either, then look forward to living the life of a peasant.

Although I expect you would far rather kick back, bitch about how tough life is while you put your hand out begging for access to other peoples hard work.

Post: #22

How much has inflation grew since than? That's a hidden tax.

Post: #23

(10-30-2011 07:32 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 10:05 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  That wasn't the assumption. It only showed that your Darwin, survival of the fittest pitch doesn't hold water.

Non stop one liners and off the cuff remarks which you take no time to substantiate. The arrogance it conveys might not be far off the mark with you, and its pointless even trying to debate anything with you. Maybe this is a representation of your work ethic too.

1) Female participation in the workforce rocketed in the 70's.
2) Industrialisation of Asia and South America gained momentum in the 90's.

Wages wont increase when there is no shortage of labour. Female participation also led to massive asset inflation which has eroded wealth.

Those are facts.

Now either look to open a business of your own or skill up in areas where you will be paid well. If you cant do either, then look forward to living the life of a peasant.

Although I expect you would far rather kick back, bitch about how tough life is while you put your hand out begging for access to other peoples hard work.

Sounds like you're drunk again.

Post: #24

(10-30-2011 07:32 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 10:05 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  That wasn't the assumption. It only showed that your Darwin, survival of the fittest pitch doesn't hold water.

Non stop one liners and off the cuff remarks which you take no time to substantiate. The arrogance it conveys might not be far off the mark with you, and its pointless even trying to debate anything with you. Maybe this is a representation of your work ethic too.

Although I expect you would far rather kick back, bitch about how tough life is while you put your hand out begging for access to other peoples hard work.

You sound like some guy scolding his kid for not doing his chores.

I'm sorry you got so hot under the collar about my "one-liners".

Post: #25

You are on ignore. I cannot stomach retards.

Trolled every thread to pieces.

High 5's.