Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 11, 2013 12:27:12 GMT -5
There seems to be a trend...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 12:31:28 GMT -5
is there a link to the article?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 11, 2013 12:35:52 GMT -5
It's behind a paywall. And the chart pretty much says it all.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 12:45:19 GMT -5
Bah. The rich even get to monopolize the news. The overall per capita income in the US is around $42,000. The median income, than which half of us make more, is $51,000. The average black household - that's household, not person - has an income of $33,000. The poverty level for an individual is around $11,720.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:15:45 GMT -5
There seems to be a trend... it's even worse if you look over a longer period. the good news is that this is great short term news for the rich. the bad news is that this is terrible long term news for the rich.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 13:16:57 GMT -5
I really, really, do hope it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 13:54:40 GMT -5
okay
so the rich keep getting richer
why?
a number of reasons i can think of.....
1. we are losing our middle class....it has been out sourced to other countries because labor is cheaper there
2. people spend more than they should......this is a big one for me.....the generations following the depression understood about savings.....now it is about a new iphone or a larger flat screen tv
3. the standard of living for today versus 50 years ago is still much better
4. people are living longer.....and when they have little or nothing saved, living on the stipend from social security alone is nearly impossible
the rich continue to INVEST....in real estate, stocks, etc
those investments rise in value over time.....ie they get richer
the poor have nothing saved, or owned, hence nothing to grow
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:59:13 GMT -5
okay so the rich keep getting richer why? a number of reasons i can think of..... 1. we are losing our middle class....it has been out sourced to other countries because labor is cheaper there labor has always been cheaper "there", but we have not always been losing the middle class. that started in the 70's, and has been steadily gaining momentum from that point forward.2. people spend more than they should......this is a big one for me.....the generations following the depression understood about savings.....now it is about a new iphone or a larger flat screen tv that is true. people have not faced up to the reality that the American Dream is GONE. at first, they compensated by working more. that helped. then, they sent their wives to work (more). that helped, too. since 2000, they have borrowed. that, obviously, had to come to an end. and thus cracks a noble dream, built on 150 years of historically egalitarian business practice.3. the standard of living for today versus 50 years ago is still much better 4. people are living longer.....and when they have little or nothing saved, living on the stipend from social security alone is nearly impossible the rich continue to INVEST....in real estate, stocks, etc the top 10% own 80% of all investments. that has been the case for decades.those investments rise in value over time.....ie they get richer the poor have nothing saved, or owned, hence nothing to grow you can't save if you don't earn.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 11, 2013 13:59:26 GMT -5
okay so the rich keep getting richer why? a number of reasons i can think of..... 1. we are losing our middle class....it has been out sourced to other countries because labor is cheaper there 2. people spend more than they should......this is a big one for me.....the generations following the depression understood about savings.....now it is about a new iphone or a larger flat screen tv 3. the standard of living for today versus 50 years ago is still much better 4. people are living longer.....and when they have little or nothing saved, living on the stipend from social security alone is nearly impossible the rich continue to INVEST....in real estate, stocks, etc those investments rise in value over time.....ie they get richer the poor have nothing saved, or owned, hence nothing to grow There are a lot of reasons. The reason for the 0.01% bar more than doubling in height is due to policies that overwhelmingly favour that bracket. The bailout and the ongoing market operations by the Fed are two of the main culprits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 14:05:34 GMT -5
I don't deny the trend, but the chart really doesn't say it all.
First off, the higher you get on the percentile, the more income varies from year to year. So the top numbers might be typical or they might be an aberration. Especially the top 0.01%, which is really the only colum that makes the chart look horrible.
Also, the numbers almost certainly do not count certain "non-income" benefits like the value of health care premiums paid by employer.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 14:07:30 GMT -5
okay so the rich keep getting richer why? a number of reasons i can think of..... 1. we are losing our middle class....it has been out sourced to other countries because labor is cheaper there labor has always been cheaper "there", but we have not always been losing the middle class. that started in the 70's, and has been steadily gaining momentum from that point forward.2. people spend more than they should......this is a big one for me.....the generations following the depression understood about savings.....now it is about a new iphone or a larger flat screen tv that is true. people have not faced up to the reality that the American Dream is GONE. at first, they compensated by working more. that helped. then, they sent their wives to work (more). that helped, too. since 2000, they have borrowed. that, obviously, had to come to an end. and thus cracks a noble dream, built on 150 years of historically egalitarian business practice.3. the standard of living for today versus 50 years ago is still much better 4. people are living longer.....and when they have little or nothing saved, living on the stipend from social security alone is nearly impossible the rich continue to INVEST....in real estate, stocks, etc the top 10% own 80% of all investments. that has been the case for decades.those investments rise in value over time.....ie they get richer the poor have nothing saved, or owned, hence nothing to grow you can't save if you don't earn. dj i disagree even those on minimum wage CAN save $ 20 a week, or a payday you live BELOW your means....you get a second income....you figure out a way to MAKE it happen
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 14:08:22 GMT -5
There is a clear inflection point that happened in the 70s. So going back that far is useless unless someone can identify what caused that inflection point. It's not as if it gradually changed. Some specific event or several events caused the change at a defined moment in time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 14:09:59 GMT -5
Since the graph lumps the bottom 90% into one bracket, this statement is not true for any of the brackets in the graph. Just a small part of one bracket.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 11, 2013 14:24:54 GMT -5
There is a clear inflection point that happened in the 70s. So going back that far is useless unless someone can identify what caused that inflection point. It's not as if it gradually changed. Some specific event or several events caused the change at a defined moment in time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 14:25:00 GMT -5
Many have bemoaned the loss of US manufacturing jobs to foreign lands. The following quote by Mark Riddix is typical: One of the biggest challenges facing the American economy is that we lack a domestic manufacturing base. Simply put we do not produce anything anymore. We buy tons of foreign goods and then wonder why we are lacking jobs. We import most of our goods which has resulted in a huge trade deficit and industrial job losses. Our economy has transitioned from an agricultural society to an industrial society to a service economy[1]. And recently, Steve Hansen has argued that job losses are associated with the growing US trade deficit. I quote Hansen: The burr under my saddle is jobs…. Trade deficits export jobs. Some think it is only money on balance sheet – but it is jobs that are exported when a country imports manufactured goods.[2] Is it correct to associate job losses with the US trade deficit? Should the US worry about losing manufacturing jobs? After all, a growing service sector is a common characteristic of countries with growing per capita incomes. Are the current problems in manufacturing merely cyclical – a direct result of American bankers causing a panic that led to the global recession? Remember that between 1998 and 2007, the US unemployment rate averaged 4.9%. Or are there longer term structural problems at work? I have looked carefully at recent writings on the subject – many of the claims for why the jobs were lost are way off the mark. It is notable that most of those bemoaning US job losses look at manufacturing as a single industry. It is not. The manufacturing sector is made up of different industries with different dynamics. What Manufacturing Industries Lost Jobs? Looking back to 1975, 1978 was the peak year for jobs in manufacturing. Table 1 shows the manufacturing industries with the largest job losses in the 1978-2007 period.[3] . Table 1. – Job Losses in Manufacturing by Industry, 1978-2007 Computers/ Primary Trans. Paper/ Fabricated Year All Electronics Garments Textiles Metals Equip. Printing Metals % Chge. -29% -35% -78% -67% -59% -26% -30% -21% Abs. Chge. -5,657 -947 -797 -695 -648 -596 -479 -406 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics What caused these job losses? In reacting to Steve Hansen’s article, John Lounsbury pointed out: Now, to be fair, not all the employment decline was due to increased employment overseas. Trade deficits remained fairly benign by 21st century standards. Employment declined significantly because of productivity improvements as more and more automation replaced manual labor.[4] So let’s look at job-saving automation. In the 1987 to 2007 period, manufacturing value added output has increased by 123% while employment has fallen by 21%. This suggests an overall productivity increase of 181% for the manufacturing sector, and it would have been greater if the data had gone back to 1978. So where in manufacturing were productivity gains greatest? Probably in electronics and computers. www.morssglobalfinance.com/the-loss-of-american-manufacturing-jobs-what-are-the-facts/automation, trade deficit, and our dependence on foreign oil is what this guy says caused most of our issues.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 14:30:01 GMT -5
Since the graph lumps the bottom 90% into one bracket, this statement is not true for any of the brackets in the graph. Just a small part of one bracket. bingo.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 11, 2013 14:30:45 GMT -5
... our dependence on foreign oil ... Our loss of control of the pricing for foreign oil.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 14:30:48 GMT -5
Many have bemoaned the loss of US manufacturing jobs to foreign lands. The following quote by Mark Riddix is typical: One of the biggest challenges facing the American economy is that we lack a domestic manufacturing base. Simply put we do not produce anything anymore. We buy tons of foreign goods and then wonder why we are lacking jobs. We import most of our goods which has resulted in a huge trade deficit and industrial job losses. Our economy has transitioned from an agricultural society to an industrial society to a service economy[1]. And recently, Steve Hansen has argued that job losses are associated with the growing US trade deficit. I quote Hansen: The burr under my saddle is jobs…. Trade deficits export jobs. Some think it is only money on balance sheet – but it is jobs that are exported when a country imports manufactured goods.[2] Is it correct to associate job losses with the US trade deficit? Should the US worry about losing manufacturing jobs? After all, a growing service sector is a common characteristic of countries with growing per capita incomes. Are the current problems in manufacturing merely cyclical – a direct result of American bankers causing a panic that led to the global recession? Remember that between 1998 and 2007, the US unemployment rate averaged 4.9%. Or are there longer term structural problems at work? I have looked carefully at recent writings on the subject – many of the claims for why the jobs were lost are way off the mark. It is notable that most of those bemoaning US job losses look at manufacturing as a single industry. It is not. The manufacturing sector is made up of different industries with different dynamics. What Manufacturing Industries Lost Jobs? Looking back to 1975, 1978 was the peak year for jobs in manufacturing. Table 1 shows the manufacturing industries with the largest job losses in the 1978-2007 period.[3] . Table 1. – Job Losses in Manufacturing by Industry, 1978-2007 Computers/ Primary Trans. Paper/ Fabricated Year All Electronics Garments Textiles Metals Equip. Printing Metals % Chge. -29% -35% -78% -67% -59% -26% -30% -21% Abs. Chge. -5,657 -947 -797 -695 -648 -596 -479 -406 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics What caused these job losses? In reacting to Steve Hansen’s article, John Lounsbury pointed out: Now, to be fair, not all the employment decline was due to increased employment overseas. Trade deficits remained fairly benign by 21st century standards. Employment declined significantly because of productivity improvements as more and more automation replaced manual labor.[4] So let’s look at job-saving automation. In the 1987 to 2007 period, manufacturing value added output has increased by 123% while employment has fallen by 21%. This suggests an overall productivity increase of 181% for the manufacturing sector, and it would have been greater if the data had gone back to 1978. So where in manufacturing were productivity gains greatest? Probably in electronics and computers. www.morssglobalfinance.com/the-loss-of-american-manufacturing-jobs-what-are-the-facts/automation, trade deficit, and our dependence on foreign oil is what this guy says caused most of our issues..... i think that is pretty sound reasoning.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 14:32:11 GMT -5
you can't save if you don't earn. dj i disagree even those on minimum wage CAN save $ 20 a week, or a payday you live BELOW your means....you get a second income....you figure out a way to MAKE it happen sure. you can live off eating dirt, too, apparently. it is really not an issue of CAN. i think you are missing my point, but i have no time left in which to make it. good day.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 14:33:17 GMT -5
There is a clear inflection point that happened in the 70s. So going back that far is useless unless someone can identify what caused that inflection point. It's not as if it gradually changed. Some specific event or several events caused the change at a defined moment in time. agreed. but as i just said with gd, i have run out of time to discuss it. l8rs.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 11, 2013 14:39:09 GMT -5
Speaking of changing job demographics, ZH had this interesting contributor plot.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 14:48:11 GMT -5
I'd be shocked if it was foreign oil (there have to be other major factors as well). At least give me a strong data corellation. Like I said, it is a clear inflection point, not something that happend over 5-10 years.
Besides, the US now has the cheapest energy in the world, OPEC has lost a lot of it's power, etc. Are you saying that you predict this is the beginning of a return to faster compensation growth?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 11, 2013 14:50:45 GMT -5
I'd be shocked if it was foreign oil (there have to be other major factors as well). At least give me a strong data corellation. Like I said, it is a clear inflection point, not something that happend over 5-10 years. Besides, the US now has the cheapest energy in the world, OPEC has lost a lot of it's power, etc. Are you saying that you predict this is the beginning of a return to faster compensation growth? It was the oil price "shock" that changed the country, and also changed business management approach. Bills had it correct, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 14:52:19 GMT -5
He may well. But we need more. Labor policies were also changing. There are a tremendous number of things that go into this.
Also, I don't think anyone here has even identified the date of the inflection point. What if it occurred prior to the oil price shock? Probably should at least validate the timing?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 11, 2013 14:58:51 GMT -5
He may well. But we need more. ... OPEC was simply the most visible of the loss of economic colonial control of national resources by the US and European nations.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 11, 2013 15:03:10 GMT -5
Damn. I am not in the top 10% I am now a Blue Dog Democrat from now on! Where do I sign up? Do I have to wait til the next election and declare at the polls, or do I just write a check to DNC now?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 15:15:03 GMT -5
He may well. But we need more. ... OPEC was simply the most visible of the loss of economic colonial control of national resources by the US and European nations. Maybe so, but I'd like confirmation, starting with at least confirming the timing. You may well be 100% right. I have no idea what the right answer is and would like to be fairly confident. Unfortunately, I don't quite remember how to find out the timing of that inflection point....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 11, 2013 15:17:44 GMT -5
Posted Reply #20 in the wrong thread.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,004
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Nov 12, 2013 9:34:02 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:47:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 9:45:38 GMT -5
Well it does make sense that they would be worried. Extreme pay inequality would mean limited economic growth opportunities. But the fact remains that standard of living and total compensation has at least continued to grow (over the long term of roughly 30yrs) for pretty much everyone except the bottom 20% or so.
Now while the existence of a severe income gap might be a problem, taking money away from the rich simply isn't the solution. Nor is raising the minimum wage to an absurd level which would probably make the problem worse.
|
|