You're not imagining it: the rich really are hoarding economic growth

[adrina]

source


This is the standard one we've seen for a while now.


https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EO3fk--Ubqhx0S42hPpIQkapqb8=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9012347/112164_13602.png


Now we have a new one. But with more data that takes into account the three most often conservative critiques leveled at that chart. The article lists them if you want to delve into them.

In brief:

Crucially, the way that Saez, Piketty, and Zucman calculated the numbers answers basically all of the conservative critiques. They use tax data on incomes as their base, but then fold in the cost of employer-provided health care, pensions, and other benefits, as measured by survey data. They also add in the effect of all taxes and government transfer programs like food stamps or Medicaid. They measure changes in income among adults, rather than households or tax units, meaning changes in family size don’t matter. And they use the slower-growing inflation metric, rather than CPI.

And when they did that, they got this:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/nGE6U7SsUHU9t5d1MuxU7Uj8KeA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9013427/Screenshot_2017_08_08_12.34.47.png

People at or below the median income saw their incomes rise by 1 percent or less every year during that period. That isn’t nothing, but it’s hardly great. At the very bottom, some people have seen incomes fall pre-tax; while most poor households get government assistance to help with that, programs like food stamps or the earned income tax credit fail to reach about 20 to 25 percent of the people they’re meant to help.

However the top 1% - up 3,4,5 and 6%.

They ran the data to compare it to the past. And they got:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGrnYwsUQAA__F0.jpg

If the 1980-2014 graph was staggering, the 1946-1980 one is even more so. It shows that the uneven distribution of economic growth in recent decades is not the way things have always been.

In the 1950s and ’60s, poor and middle-income Americans actually saw greater income growth than rich ones. The big fat spike at the end of the chart doesn’t exist in that period. The richest of the rich got rather muted increases in income. And everyone’s income rose a great deal faster from 1946 to 1980 than the bottom 95 percent’s did from 1980 to 2014. The rich saw incomes rise more slowly then, but their incomes were still growing much faster than those of today’s middle class.

One theory as to why is the high tax rate paid by the wealthy in the past. Conservative economists dispute that theory.

But if nothing else, the Saez, Piketty, and Zucman research confirms that something really did change in the 1970s and ’80s, to make the economy less rewarding to the middle-class and poor and more rewarding to the rich. That’s an important finding, and given how careful their latest work is to include all sources of income, it’s going to be a hard one to rebut.

 

[TalkRadio]

Barack Obama’s net worth surges after leaving the White House, thanks to Wall Street

source

This is the standard one we've seen for a while now.

Now we have a new one. But with more data that takes into account the three most often conservative critiques leveled at that chart. The article lists them if you want to delve into them.

One theory as to why is the high tax rate paid by the wealthy in the past. Conservative economists dispute that theory.

Seems to me Obama loved the rich so much he decided to join the group!

There are valid reasons to be concerned by a president’s earnings, including after their tenure in the Oval Office. Where a former commander-in-chief earns his or her income–and the company they choose to keep after serving as the leader of the free world–could speak to their basic values in a way policies and legislation cannot.

So when some Americans, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, saw former President Barack Obama accepting $400,000 speeches from Wall Street, signing book deals worth $65 million and vacationing with billionaires off the coast of Tahiti in a $300 million yacht, you can bet they were perplexed.

How could it be that Obama, the smooth-talking Democratic candidate in 2008 who slammed Wall Street greed and resonated with the working class in a way his party has since been unable to authentically recreate, is living his post-presidential life like an elitist one percenter?

http://www.newsweek.com/how-much-mo...worth-trump-capitalism-pay-wall-street-591762

 

[Que]

I thought we were all supposed to get rich in the new green energy economy?

...Or be free to enjoy the lifestyle of a Bohemian artist because of Obamacare?

Labor has traditionally been a fairly big component of most enterprises for wealth building. That's no longer the case because of automation. Regardless, the guy up the street who builds a factory where robots build robots to get rich does not make me any poorer.

Despite what the last president thought it is not the job of rich people to spread the wealth around.

It also is not the job of the last president or the current one to create wealth. It is their job to stay out of the way so people can start and grow their own businesses.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I thought we were all supposed to get rich in the new green energy economy?

...Or be free to enjoy the lifestyle of a Bohemian artist because of Obamacare?

Labor has traditionally been a fairly big component of most enterprises for wealth building. That's no longer the case because of automation. Regardless, the guy up the street who builds a factory where robots build robots to get rich does not make me any poorer.

Despite what the last president thought it is not the job of rich people to spread the wealth around.

It also is not the job of the last president or the current one to create wealth. It is their job to stay out of the way so people can start and grow their own businesses.

Perhaps that's the way it should be; but living in the real world we have to realize that that's not the way it is.

In the past 30 years the ultra-wealthy have manipulated the system (government and regulatory) to their benefit. That's why there's been such a growth in the wealth disparity.

From the country's founding, government has existed (and in fact, was created) to build and preserve the wealth of the wealthy. The Proles occasionally get a crust of bread tossed to them, but for the most part are bled to feed the rich.

I accept the way it is, because it's the way it's always been. The difference now though, is that the Proles aren't even getting that crust of bread. I think, one way or another, that will change in the near future.

 

[DumOH]

Im gonna take a SHOWER.

Good!

 

[Disgustipated]

I thought we were all supposed to get rich in the new green energy economy?

...Or be free to enjoy the lifestyle of a Bohemian artist because of Obamacare?

This is either wishful thinking or partisan idiocracy on your part. No one with a minor grasp on reality believed either of these things.

 

[richard_daily]

It's time to tax the rich. They've been getting free handouts for far too long.

 

[water505]

It's time to tax the rich. They've been getting free handouts for far too long.

Yes! If you've made a lot of money by working your fingers to the bone building a successful business, created jobs, providing employees and their families with health benefits and putting food on their table, those people need to be punished.

Now without Googling it tell us what percentage of people pay no federal income tax at all.

Moron.

 

[richard_daily]

Yes! If you've made a lot of money by working your fingers to the bone building a successful business, created jobs, providing employees and their families with health benefits and putting food on their table, those people need to be punished.

Now without Googling it tell us what percentage of people pay no federal income tax at all.

Moron.

The rich don't make money working their fingers to the bone. They are born into money and they make money on compound interest and crony capitalism. If you don't realize that, you've gotten the wool pulled over your eyes.

Also: p.s. you're not rich.

 

[water505]

The rich don't make money working their fingers to the bone. They are born into money and they make money on compound interest and crony capitalism. If you don't realize that, you've gotten the wool pulled over your eyes.

Also: p.s. you're not rich.

Every time you open your mouth stupid comes out like an uncapped fire hydrant.

You might be the dumbest motherfucker in the history of the world.

So they're all born into money, huh?

 

[Libsam]

Every time some new income statistics come out, two predictable fallacies follow in their wake: 1) The rich are getting richer, while the poor are falling behind, and 2) the real income of American families has not risen significantly for years.

An absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 have also been in the top 20 percent at some time since then. Most Americans don’t stay put in any income bracket. At different times, they are both “rich” and “poor” — as these terms are recklessly thrown around in the media. Most of those who are called “the rich” are just middle-class people whose taxes the politicians avoid cutting by giving them that name.

There are of course some people who remain permanently in the bottom 20 percent. But such people constitute less than one percent of the American population, according to data published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in its 1995 annual report. Perhaps the intelligentsia and the politicians have been too busy waxing indignant to be bothered by anything so mundane as facts.

Alarmists are not talking about real flesh and blood people. They are talking about abstract categories like the top or bottom 10 percent or 20 percent of families or households. So long as all incomes are not identical, there will always be top and bottom 10 percents or 20 percents or any other percents. But these abstract categories do not contain the same people over time.

Behind both the statistics on inequality that are spotlighted and the statistics on ever-changing personal incomes that are ignored is the simple fact that people just starting out in their careers usually do not make as much money as they will later, after they have had years of experience.

Who should be surprised that 60-year-olds have higher incomes and more wealth than 30-year-olds? Moreover, that was also true 30 years ago, when today’s 60-year-olds were just 30. But these are not different classes of people. They are the same people at different stages of their lives.

At some times and places, there have been whole classes of people who lived permanently in poverty or in luxury. But, in the United States today, the percentage of Americans who fit either description does not reach beyond single digits.

It is one thing to be concerned about the fate of flesh and blood human beings. It is something very different to create alarms about statistical relationships between abstract categories. ~Thomas Sowell

TL;DR
Poor and Rich- these two groups are not static.

 

[richard_daily]

Every time you open your mouth stupid comes out like an uncapped fire hydrant.

You might be the dumbest motherfucker in the history of the world.

So they're all born into money, huh?

Other than Obama, I can't think of a single "self-made" millionaire.

Feel free to list some.

Are you included in the list?

 

[AlotLikePsyche]

Other than Obama, I can't think of a single "self-made" millionaire.

Feel free to list some.

Are you included in the list?

Hey, Mr. Daily. It's nice to see you around!

I'm not sympathetic to the narrative of the "self-made" millionaire, but some rare examples do come to mind... how 'bout Oprah or J. K. Rowling?

Still, I agree that most any example is likely an outlier in this case. Without bothering to look-up actual data, my understanding is that the wealthy generally inherit their wealth along with a favorable set of circumstances, and tend to stay wealthy by protecting their own.

 

[Hypoxia]

EAT THE RICH

With salsa verde

 

[cfuhrer]

The rich don't make money working their fingers to the bone. They are born into money and they make money on compound interest and crony capitalism. If you don't realize that, you've gotten the wool pulled over your eyes.

Also: p.s. you're not rich.

^^^^ jealous.

 

[water505]

I can't think "

FYP.

Now continue making a fucking fool of yourself.

 

[Blue]

Maybe this statement is far too communist for some, but I really don't think that anybody should have a net worth larger than that of small countries.

http://i.imgur.com/bEjokRv.png

Almost there, Slovakia!

 

[water505]

^^^^ jealous.

It's a typical point of view from someone who is completely out of touch with reality and never accomplished a damn thing in their lives. In all likelihood he blames other people for his misery.

 

[richard_daily]

It's a typical point of view from someone who is completely out of touch with reality and never accomplished a damn thing in their lives. In all likelihood he blames other people for his misery.

You're not rich.


You'll never be rich.

Sorry that you can't accept that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Maybe this statement is far too communist for some, but I really don't think that anybody should have a net worth larger than that of small countries.

Why not?

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

I believe questions about wealth and income inequality, and the disconnect between productivity and median wage, impinge on some of the most important issues of the day. For a more conservative perspective on the disconnect, the conclusion of a study has argued that until very recently, the disconnect has been overstated. That the correct measure is not wages, but total employee compensation. At the very least, it paints a less bleak picture for the middle class. (Though there is much more we could be doing better.)

Higher productivity used to mean higher wages. Has that broken down?

While average wages have fallen by 7 percent over the last 40 years, Sherk calculates total compensation has risen 30 percent. That’s still well below the 100 percent increase in productivity. To close the remaining gap, Sherk does two things. First, he uses a different measure of inflation to calculate worker compensation from an employer’s point of view.

Instead of using the Consumer Price Index, which measures the cost of goods and services people consume, Sherk uses the Implicit Price Deflator, which includes the cost of the things businesses make. You can dive into his paper for the technical details, but the thrust is, those business costs have risen more slowly than consumer costs, which yields a lower inflation calculation, which, when applied to compensation, makes it appear worker compensation has been stronger than consumer-inflation-based calculations suggest.

Sherk says this makes sense: Productivity is linked to compensation from the business side of the equation. Firms increase pay based on what they can sell their products for, not based on how much more expensive it is for their employees to live.

http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1684/33374-1684-n7sp6-a.jpg

 

[Disgustipated]

You're not rich.


You'll never be rich.

Sorry that you can't accept that.

But his wife is and dangit, he gets a decent allowance!

 

[EternalFantasies]

The level of irony, and paradoxical thoughts in this thread are so abundant, that i wish i had more sadism in me to trigger a systematic orgasm from the mere contemplation of the image this thread represents...

How the rich have become more rich (erosion of the family unit [triggering bad choices, consumption etc), making supply of labor higher so its price reduces, etc], how the enslavement of the people through snowflake style causes thereby making the morons more populate and strong and weakening of the strong smart and abled...

And who's starting the thread? the poster-child of all of the above, championing all such causes, then coming complaining about this how much we're getting paid per hour... My mind, about 2 seconds after i opened this thread, almost exploded. Hence my need for extra sadism to at least benefit from this not explode


So dear snowflakes and today's American left morons: ZE number one reason, ZE main trigger for the lower wage versus productivity factor in the US economy, has been, ...wait for it... see it coming? Women's entrance into the workforce.

I'll give little hints, but economics need large explanations and complex ones that I'm not getting into for free

The graph says 'dramatically since 1973'. Here's the main trigger reasons for the up-sloping curve that turned dramatic once certain laws and regulations took effect:

Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Rise of the feminist movement in the mid 60's.
Presidential Executive Order in 1967 (the was only one )



A little note to the ladies: not that i mind, rather the contrary. I just don't like how it took place, and how ignorance was used in the name of "equality" to effectively enslave the rest of us.

The women in Nicaragua, for example, did not fall for it; and they preserved the family unit, and used the culture of Machismo to their advantage and corporations went to hell.

Oh well..

Thanks

Signed: A very bad Man
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/9e/2a/489e2a786fc95f1221b3b761cd4f2b56.gif

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

The level of irony, and paradoxical thoughts in this thread are so abundant, that i wish i had more sadism in me to trigger a systematic orgasm from the mere contemplation of the image this thread represents...

How the rich have become more rich (erosion of the family unit [triggering bad choices, consumption etc), making supply of labor higher so its price reduces, etc], how the enslavement of the people through snowflake style causes thereby making the morons more populate and strong and weakening of the strong smart and abled...

And who's starting the thread? the poster-child of all of the above, championing all such causes, then coming complaining about this how much we're getting paid per hour... My mind, about 2 seconds after i opened this thread, almost exploded. Hence my need for extra sadism to at least benefit from this not explode


So dear snowflakes and today's American left morons: ZE number one reason, ZE main trigger for the lower wage versus productivity factor in the US economy, has been, ...wait for it... see it coming? Women's entrance into the workforce.

I'll give little hints, but economics need large explanations and complex ones that I'm not getting into for free

The graph says 'dramatically since 1973'. Here's the main trigger reasons for the up-sloping curve that turned dramatic once certain laws and regulations took effect:

Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Rise of the feminist movement in the mid 60's.
Presidential Executive Order in 1967 (the was only one )



A little note to the ladies: not that i mind, rather the contrary. I just don't like how it took place, and how ignorance was used in the name of "equality" to effectively enslave the rest of us.

The women in Nicaragua, for example, did not fall for it; and they preserved the family unit, and used the culture of Machismo to their advantage and corporations went to hell.

Oh well..

Thanks

Signed: A very bad Man
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/9e/2a/489e2a786fc95f1221b3b761cd4f2b56.gif

Could you rephrase this shit in the form of a language?

 

[adrina]

Could you rephrase this shit in the form of a language?

Nah, he's pretty much confined to gifs for his communication.