Economic mobility hasn’t changed in a half-century in America

by confuzzled dude Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:17 pm

"Children growing up in America today are just as likely — no more, no less — to climb the economic ladder as children born more than a half-century ago, a team of economists reported Thursday.

Even though social movements have delivered better career opportunities for women and minorities and government grants have made college more accessible, one thing has stayed constant: If you are growing up poor today, you appear to have the same odds of staying poor in adulthood that your grandparents did.

The findings also suggest that who your parents are and how much they earn is more consequential for American youths today than ever before. That’s because the difference between the bottom and the top of the economic ladder has grown much more stark, but climbing the ladder hasn’t gotten any easier.

That finding implies mobility is stuck at a low rate, at least compared to other wealthy nations:It is much harder for a poor child born in America to climb into the rare air of the country’s highest earners than it is for a similar child in, for example, Canada or Denmark."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html?hpid=z1

by truthbetold Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:31 pm

Let us look at some recent billionaires:
Bill gates, Sergei (google), zuckerberg, jack Dorsey(twitter) etc etc
Obama, bill Clinton, sotomyer, etc
Check avg income (mean or Median).
Check avg house size
Check life expectancy over 40 years

by Hellsangel Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:33 pm

truthbetold wrote:Let us look at some recent billionaires:
Bill gates, Sergei (google), zuckerberg, jack Dorsey(twitter) etc etc
Obama, bill Clinton, sotomyer, etc
Check avg income (mean or Median).
Check avg house size
Check life expectancy over 40 years

The story suits Comrade CD's narrative. Why do you want to burst his bubble?

by confuzzled dude Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:41 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Let us look at some recent billionaires:
Bill gates, Sergei (google), zuckerberg, jack Dorsey(twitter) etc etc
Obama, bill Clinton, sotomyer, etc
Check avg income (mean or Median).
Check avg house size
Check life expectancy over 40 years
The story suits Comrade CD's narrative. Why do you want to burst his bubble?

It says economic mobility hasn't changed not ceased; and becoming harder for poor Americans to climb up than poor Canadians.

by Hellsangel Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:44 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Let us look at some recent billionaires:
Bill gates, Sergei (google), zuckerberg, jack Dorsey(twitter) etc etc
Obama, bill Clinton, sotomyer, etc
Check avg income (mean or Median).
Check avg house size
Check life expectancy over 40 years
The story suits Comrade CD's narrative. Why do you want to burst his bubble?

It says economic mobility hasn't changed not ceased; and becoming harder for poor Americans to climb up than poor Canadians.

Canada simply brought everyone down with it's socialist policies. It's easier to become a billionaire in the US than in Canada or West Europe still.

by Kris Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:55 am

Even though social movements have delivered better career opportunities for women and minorities and government grants have made college more accessible, one thing has stayed constant: If you are growing up poor today, you appear to have the same odds of staying poor in adulthood that your grandparents did.

>>>Okay- so whose fault is it? Are they saying the burden is off the individuals then? If anything, this sort of outlook, where things are seen as "happening" to people and no responsibility is put on them *is* a major contributor to this malaise.

The findings also suggest that who your parents are and how much they earn is more consequential for American youths today than ever before. That’s because the difference between the bottom and the top of the economic ladder has grown much more stark, but climbing the ladder hasn’t gotten any easier.

>>>CD, this part of the article is really perplexing. Who is asking them to climb what ladder? Let them get the right training and stay focused on their lives and things will happen. This worrying about the economic ladder seems like contrived breast-beating by the authors. It may pass for "intellectual" theory in a sociology class, but really is nonsense.

That finding implies mobility is stuck at a low rate, at least compared to other wealthy nations:It is much harder for a poor child born in America to climb into the rare air of the country’s highest earners than it is for a similar child in, for example, Canada or Denmark."

>>> This is a strange "all or nothing" worry. Does it matter to low wage earners as a goal (I mean to be among the highest earners)? Do Canada and Denmark measure up to America in terms of the number and magnitude of the wealthy individuals they create?

by truthbetold Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:26 am

Cd
We can play with numbers but look at who is running the show in major sectors of us life. Business, cultural, political or religious. Take top 10 and check their pedigree. You will find that they are mostly examples of middle class or poorer classes to top class. The smart thing American rich probably do is hire these mobile. Success for their own benefit.
Compare that to douchbag hereditary process of rahul Gandhi or mukesh Ambani or balakrishna or ys jagan. Wait till you see the next generation of laloo yadav.
America is not perfect but it has few self correcting mechanisms unlike left leaning semi socialist countries around the world.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:51 am

i was looking for a place to post this link and this thread seemed appropriate:

http://www.nature.com/news/development-time-to-leave-gdp-behind-1.14499

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:07 pm

Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, 2nd Edition with an Update a Decade Later

"Less than one in five Americans think 'race, gender, religion or social class are very important for getting ahead in life,' Annette Lareau tells us in her carefully researched and clearly written new book. But as she brilliantly shows, everything from looking authority figures in the eye when you shake their hands to spending long periods in a shared space and squabbling with siblings is related to social class. This is one of the most penetrating works I have read on a topic that only grows in importance as the class gap in America widens."—Arlie Russell Hochschild, author of The Time Bind and The Commercialization of Intimate Life"

"Lareau does sociology and lay readers alike an important service in her engaging book, Unequal Childhoods, by showing us exactly what kinds of knowledge, upbringing, skills, and bureaucratic savvy are involved in this idea, and how powerfully inequality in this realm perpetuates economic inequality. Through textured and intimate observation, Lareau takes us into separate worlds of pampered but overextended, middle-class families and materially stressed, but relatively relaxed, working-class and poor families to show how inequality is passed on across generations." —Katherine Newman, Contexts

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:17 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i was looking for a place to post this link and this thread seemed appropriate:

http://www.nature.com/news/development-time-to-leave-gdp-behind-1.14499

Interesting read Max. Thanks for posting. One has to wait and see how Vermont & Maryland come out in terms environmental & income equality

by Hellsangel Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:19 pm

I know, Comrade. It is very sad. You cannot rest until the United States of America becomes the United Socialist States of America.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:42 pm

Hellsangel wrote:I know, Comrade. It is very sad. You cannot rest until the United States of America becomes the United Socialist States of America.

Well, I was at DMV this morning to turn in plates, I & others were made to wait 15 minutes outside in single digit temperatures; they would let only as many number of folks inside as leave the building, apparently, building has reached its capacity. Then I waited another 45 minutes inside, would take another 45 easily at the going rate so I turned around, as I had other appointments. When I was waiting outside, I told the lady next to me "sometimes, there isn't much of a difference between first & third worlds", she agreed.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:42 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i was looking for a place to post this link and this thread seemed appropriate:

http://www.nature.com/news/development-time-to-leave-gdp-behind-1.14499
Interesting read Max. Thanks for posting. One has to wait and see how Vermont & Maryland come out in terms environmental & income equality

yes, but fully expect the GOP acolytes to dismiss it as yet another liberal project. anything but their vision of the world is communist. they have a very strict message discipline. the entire western world with the exception of the US is commie in their eyes. i fully expect the snide remarks with no substantive rebuttal to follow your comment. reagan couldn't win a GOP primary if he ran today.

by Hellsangel Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:42 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i was looking for a place to post this link and this thread seemed appropriate:

http://www.nature.com/news/development-time-to-leave-gdp-behind-1.14499
Interesting read Max. Thanks for posting. One has to wait and see how Vermont & Maryland come out in terms environmental & income equality

yes, but fully expect the GOP acolytes to dismiss it as yet another liberal project. anything but their vision of the world is communist. they have a very strict message discipline. the entire western world with the exception of the US is commie in their eyes. i fully expect the snide remarks with no substantive rebuttal to follow your comment. reagan couldn't win a GOP primary if he ran today.

It is kind of hard to understand how the real world works when you are sitting in the ivory towers of the tenured liberal academics. The rest of the poor middle class does not have that kind of security. Income equality usually ends up in dragging every one down. Not raising people up. And it is typical liberal arrogance to think that they are the only ones who have any 'substantive' views when most of the times they are just utopian socialist fools.

PS: You do seem a bit confused in trying to reconcile your views here and your views on Capitalists like Buffet.

PPS: Have you ever been to Bhutan?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:45 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i was looking for a place to post this link and this thread seemed appropriate:

http://www.nature.com/news/development-time-to-leave-gdp-behind-1.14499
Interesting read Max. Thanks for posting. One has to wait and see how Vermont & Maryland come out in terms environmental & income equality

yes, but fully expect the GOP acolytes to dismiss it as yet another liberal project. anything but their vision of the world is communist. they have a very strict message discipline. the entire western world with the exception of the US is commie in their eyes. i fully expect the snide remarks with no substantive rebuttal to follow your comment. reagan couldn't win a GOP primary if he ran today.

It is kind of hard to understand how the real world works when you are sitting in the ivory towers of the tenured liberal academics. The rest of the poor middle class does not have that kind of security. Income equality usually ends up in dragging every one down. Not raising people up. And it is typical liberal arrogance to think that they are the only ones who have any 'substantive' views when most of the times they are just utopian socialist fools.

PS: You do seem a bit confused in trying to reconcile your views here and your views on Capitalists like Buffet.

it's not an all or nothing world. only ideologues like you think like that. buffet himself is a democrat. and so is bill gates. the alternative to unbridled robber baron style capitalism is not only robin hood style communism. there is a middle ground. germany has successfully navigated that. they are not starving, they are not poor, and they are certainly not commie.

and this liberal academics business is getting tiresome. some of us work on real life problems with corporations and even consult for them. gasp!

by Hellsangel Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:12 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i was looking for a place to post this link and this thread seemed appropriate:

http://www.nature.com/news/development-time-to-leave-gdp-behind-1.14499
Interesting read Max. Thanks for posting. One has to wait and see how Vermont & Maryland come out in terms environmental & income equality

yes, but fully expect the GOP acolytes to dismiss it as yet another liberal project. anything but their vision of the world is communist. they have a very strict message discipline. the entire western world with the exception of the US is commie in their eyes. i fully expect the snide remarks with no substantive rebuttal to follow your comment. reagan couldn't win a GOP primary if he ran today.

It is kind of hard to understand how the real world works when you are sitting in the ivory towers of the tenured liberal academics. The rest of the poor middle class does not have that kind of security. Income equality usually ends up in dragging every one down. Not raising people up. And it is typical liberal arrogance to think that they are the only ones who have any 'substantive' views when most of the times they are just utopian socialist fools.

PS: You do seem a bit confused in trying to reconcile your views here and your views on Capitalists like Buffet.

it's not an all or nothing world. only ideologues like you think like that. buffet himself is a democrat. and so is bill gates. the alternative to unbridled robber baron style capitalism is not only robin hood style communism. there is a middle ground. germany has successfully navigated that. they are not starving, they are not poor, and they are certainly not commie.

and this liberal academics business is getting tiresome. some of us work on real life problems with corporations and even consult for them. gasp!

And Al Gore is a real environmentalist!

And yeah, whatever it takes to convince oneself while the do one thing and say another.
Liberal people who have been to Germany don't seem to really understand how much Germany depends on its Turkish immigrants to sustain its eonomic model and the US to sustasin its defens forces or what the cost of maintaining the absorption of former East Germany has been.

by truthbetold Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:24 pm

Isn't Germany a capitalist country? Isn't current chancellor Angela a right winter? Isn't her austerity first policy more close to republican deficit reduction first policy?

Max says Germany is an example of libetal vapitalism. Hell says Germany is cheating capitalism.

What's happening here?

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:46 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
It is kind of hard to understand how the real world works when you are sitting in the ivory towers of the tenured liberal academics. The rest of the poor middle class does not have that kind of security. Income equality usually ends up in dragging every one down. Not raising people up. And it is typical liberal arrogance to think that they are the only ones who have any 'substantive' views when most of the times they are just utopian socialist fools.

PS: You do seem a bit confused in trying to reconcile your views here and your views on Capitalists like Buffet.

PPS: Have you ever been to Bhutan?

Isn't that precisely what is happening now? Why do you think poor are becoming poorer!!!

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:47 pm

truthbetold wrote:Isn't Germany a capitalist country? Isn't current chancellor Angela a right winter? Isn't her austerity first policy more close to republican deficit reduction first policy?

Max says Germany is an example of libetal vapitalism. Hell says Germany is cheating capitalism.

What's happening here?

it depends on what your reference point is. if you look at them from the standpoint of an american conservative as we understand the term today, germany as a country and angela merkel as an individual will definitely appear leftist.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:51 pm

truthbetold wrote:Let us look at some recent billionaires:
Bill gates, Sergei (google), zuckerberg, jack Dorsey(twitter) etc etc
Obama, bill Clinton, sotomyer, etc
Check avg income (mean or Median).
Check avg house size
Check life expectancy over 40 years

Let's not confuse income inequality with a few successful entrepreneurs, you will find them even in India Ambani, GMR, Sunill Mittal all are self-made billionaires too.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:54 pm

not all american liberals want to do straight up increases in welfare payments of the robin hood kind. there are any number of projects to improve the crumbling national infrastructure. how about revitalizing that? how about a more concerted effort on improving k-12 education and bringing it up to the standards of south korea, finland, and singapore? how about getting behind projects like these?

conservatives have no economic ideas other than tax cutting and deregulation. no creative thought process whatsoever.

by Hellsangel Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:26 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:not all american liberals want to do straight up increases in welfare payments of the robin hood kind. there are any number of projects to improve the crumbling national infrastructure. how about revitalizing that? how about a more concerted effort on improving k-12 education and bringing it up to the standards of south korea, finland, and singapore? how about getting behind projects like these?

conservatives have no economic ideas other than tax cutting and deregulation. no creative thought process whatsoever.

Read these while you sip the Obama koolaid

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-23/manufacturing-jobs-may-not-be-cure-for-unemployment-inequality

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-of-500000-manufacturing-jobs-month-after-month/2013/06/07/a16c03cc-cfb9-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_blog.html

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:35 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:not all american liberals want to do straight up increases in welfare payments of the robin hood kind. there are any number of projects to improve the crumbling national infrastructure. how about revitalizing that? how about a more concerted effort on improving k-12 education and bringing it up to the standards of south korea, finland, and singapore? how about getting behind projects like these?

conservatives have no economic ideas other than tax cutting and deregulation. no creative thought process whatsoever.

Read these while you sip the Obama koolaid

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-23/manufacturing-jobs-may-not-be-cure-for-unemployment-inequality

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-of-500000-manufacturing-jobs-month-after-month/2013/06/07/a16c03cc-cfb9-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_blog.html

i don't remember claiming in my post that manufacturing jobs were going up in number. did you even read the article i posted? i was responding to your binary world view in which the only thing liberals want to do is to pump up the welfare state. do you think ideas like the public private partnership hubs to develop manufacturing for emerging technologies is the same thing as pumping up the welfare state? there are many industry and university leaders who think this is a good idea. they have been tried successfully in germany.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:38 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Read these while you sip the Obama koolaid

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-23/manufacturing-jobs-may-not-be-cure-for-unemployment-inequality

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-of-500000-manufacturing-jobs-month-after-month/2013/06/07/a16c03cc-cfb9-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_blog.html

-> An excerpt from businessweek's article

"In 1953 manufacturing accounted for 28 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. By 1980 that had dropped to 20 percent, and it reached 12 percent in 2012. Over that time, U.S. GDP increased from $2.6 trillion to $15.5 trillion, which means that absolute manufacturing output more than tripled in 60 years. Those goods were produced by fewer people. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of employees in manufacturing was 16 million in 1953 (about a third of total nonfarm employment), 19 million in 1980 (about a fifth of nonfarm employment), and 12 million in 2012 (about a tenth of nonfarm employment). "

Really! I mean really!! who're we kidding.

by truthbetold Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:42 pm

Cd
What exactly are you saying? You do not agree Usa increased its manufacturing output over the years? Or are you questioning the claim that it is achieved using fewer number of people? What would be your explanation?

by truthbetold Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:05 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Isn't Germany a capitalist country? Isn't current chancellor Angela a right winter? Isn't her austerity first policy more close to republican deficit reduction first policy?

Max says Germany is an example of libetal vapitalism. Hell says Germany is cheating capitalism.

What's happening here?

it depends on what your reference point is. if you look at them from the standpoint of an american conservative as we understand the term today, germany as a country and angela merkel as an individual will definitely appear leftist.

Max,
the democratic party of Usa is to the right of popular center right parties of Europe incouding German ruling party and England 's tories. Margret Thatcher was an exception.

With in usa, right of center capitalistic framework has been working well for a long time.
A significant amount of American unemployment and underemployment is due to globalization. Large portion of mfg job loss is due to the paradigm shift to global outsourcing than any internal Usa govt policy such regulation ( republican complaint) or lack of mfg incentives (dem criticism).
Historical economic forces direction suggest Usa will never recover mfg base. It will be a service economy with a strong innovation. Focus. The failure is in transforming laborious force into a scientific labot force suited for new opportunities. Unlike a small hungry upcomingnation like south Korea which moved swiftly to new laborious force mode, Usa is a clunky old ship that may take long time to turn around. But advanced parties from silicon valley are in the vanguard of this change. Rest of the us fleet is following slowly.

by truthbetold Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:29 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Let us look at some recent billionaires:
Bill gates, Sergei (google), zuckerberg, jack Dorsey(twitter) etc etc
Obama, bill Clinton, sotomyer, etc
Check avg income (mean or Median).
Check avg house size
Check life expectancy over 40 years
Let's not confuse income inequality with a few successful entrepreneurs, you will find them even in India Ambani, GMR, Sunill Mittal all are self-made billionaires too.

Compare Usa vs India vs Europe.
Silicon valley? How much old money is there? Bio technology? How much old money there?
In the Usa the merit based society offer the most opportunity to people who can offer new value propositions. Middle class mobility is high. Opportunities for poor are higher than all most all other societies in the world. That does not mean Usa system is perfect. It implies human kind has not yet found answers to move all poke people out of poverty.
If you can suggest a better society than Usa I would be interested.
Germany or England do not come close. Norway, Sweden or Denmark are too small in size to be compared.

by truthbetold Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:39 pm

Income inequality.
Check bloomberg for a very recent interview with world's richest man/most influential communist bill gates.
his response to income inequality was peoples lives were improved over past 70 years., over past 30 years, and over past 10 years.

My two cents:
Over the past thirty years while Usa wages stagnated, poverty around the world declined. More people in Asia moved to middle class. Africa is stirring. That corruption cesspool called India lifted few millions out of poverty. Is that coincidence? Is there causual relation between these data points?

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:03 pm

Post-1980 rise in inequality
Most current discussion of income inequality in America centers on its rise since the mid to late 1970s, the so-called "Great Divergence". According to the United States Census Bureau, it reported that the income inequality between the richest and poorest people grew to its widest in 2011, as the census recorded 46.2 million people living in poverty.[165]
Broad breakdown
Breaking down the proportion of the increase in income inequality between 1979 and 2007 that came from distribution of pre-tax income and how much from taxes and "government transfers", the CBO data shows that the 33% increase[166] is composed of the following:[167][168]

23% from changes in distribution of "market income" to households (top earners received a larger share of salaries, interest, dividends, capital gains, business income, etc.)
6% from changes in "government transfers" (social security, unemployment, the end of AFDC welfare, etc.)
4% from changes in federal taxation (overall decline in the average federal tax rate and shift in federal revenues from income taxes to less progressive payroll taxes, etc.)

Of the 23% increase in inequality from changes in pre-tax "market income", 79% came from a shift to top earners in different types of income across the board. A smaller amount (21%) came from a shift from wages and salaries to more concentrated income sources – i.e., interest, dividends, business income, and especially capital gains, which are greater among top earners than income from salaries and wages, which is more common to those with lower incomes.[169]

According to Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer of JPMorgan Chase,[170] as of 2011, corporate “profit margins have reached levels not seen in decades,” and “reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement. ... US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP”[171]

Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer at Merrill Lynch Wealth Management noted that, "for the last two decades and especially in the current period, ... productivity soared ... [but] U.S. real average hourly earnings are essentially flat to down, with today’s inflation-adjusted wage equating to about the same level as that attained by workers in 1970. ... So where have the benefits of technology-driven productivity cycle gone? Almost exclusively to corporations and their very top executives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:23 pm

truthbetold wrote:Income inequality.
Check bloomberg for a very recent interview with world's richest man/most influential communist bill gates.
his response to income inequality was peoples lives were improved over past 70 years., over past 30 years, and over past 10 years.

My two cents:
Over the past thirty years while Usa wages stagnated, poverty around the world declined. More people in Asia moved to middle class. Africa is stirring. That corruption cesspool called India lifted few millions out of poverty. Is that coincidence? Is there causual relation between these data points?

An excerpt from the Wikipedia article that I posted earlier kind of explains it.

Globalization[edit]
While economists who have studied globalization agree imports have had an effect, the timing of import growth does not match the growth of income inequality. China is the world's biggest exporter and maker of manufactured products but had a per capita income in 2007 one-seventh that of the United States. By 1995 imports of manufactured goods from low-wage countries totaled less than 3% of US gross domestic product.[193]
It wasn't until 2006 that the US imported more manufactured goods from low-wage (developing) countries than from high-wage (advanced) economies.[194] Inequality increased during the 2000-2010 decade not because of stagnating wages for less-skilled workers, but because of accelerating incomes of the top 0.1%.[193] Author Timothy Noah estimates that "trade", increases in imports are responsible for just 10% of the "Great Divergence" in income distribution.[192]
Journalist James Surowiecki notes that in the last 50 years, companies and the sectors of the economy providing the most employment in the US – major retailers, restaurant chains, and supermarkets – are ones with lower profit margins and less pricing power than in the 1960s; while sectors with high profit margins and average salaries – like high technology – have relatively few employees.[195]

by truthbetold Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:30 pm

Cd
The data you presented show two key points:
1. Most of the top earners differential earnings came from market instruments like dividends.
2. Wage stagnation. Why? IT (computer) worker salaries went up significantly during 1980 to 2000. Star professor's earned larger % of department budget.
Where there is a need and laborious shortage, wages went up. In most of the economy labor demand went down due to outsourcing and globalization. Good businessmen exploited that to the fullest. Hence the low wages.
The income inequality is due to changing nature of American economic scene. While many republican policies are anti labor, the primary blame for income inequality may lay somewhere else.

by truthbetold Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:45 pm

Cd
Once again your data contradicts your concern about income inequality.
Your data says income equality is not due to lack of wage growth but due to increased income for the top few % people. What is wrong with that group earning more as long as wages are increasing?. Having said that I do not agree that wages kept pace with inflation and wealth creation in the past few decades.
The above globalization talks about mfg imports only but rest of outsourcing is ignored. It jobs and jobs that created products outside Usa for markets outside Usa are not included.
50% of some of our major corporations (ex: coke) profits are earned outside Usa from activities outside Usa. Minimal us labor is involved. But rewards flow to investors from those companies. The income inequality is not happening at the cort of us labor.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:11 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Once again your data contradicts your concern about income inequality.
Your data says income equality is not due to lack of wage growth but due to increased income for the top few % people. What is wrong with that group earning more as long as wages are increasing?. Having said that I do not agree that wages kept pace with inflation and wealth creation in the past few decades.
The above globalization talks about mfg imports only but rest of outsourcing is ignored. It jobs and jobs that created products outside Usa for markets outside Usa are not included.
50% of some of our major corporations (ex: coke) profits are earned outside Usa from activities outside Usa. Minimal us labor is involved. But rewards flow to investors from those companies. The income inequality is not happening at the cort of us labor.

That's right what's wrong with the top 1% owning nearly 50% of world's wealth, for that matter why should we cry about Indian politicians filling their coffers, in a way they are smart CEOs making profits for themselves.

by truthbetold Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:24 pm

Even in India people use common sense. Have you heard of people comptlaining
about t. Subbirami reddy earning millions? While it is likely that he uses his high profile image and connections to win some contracts, people do not complain about his large earnings. It is not public money diverted through corruption.

by truthbetold Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:35 pm

Cd
I am opposed to large concentration of wealth in few hands. But we must analyze the process and how long it is happening.
Gandhi said rich people should be good stewards of wealth and use it for societal good. For a long time thar remained a day dream. But bill gates and Warren buffet donated large chunks of their wealth for charity. Bill gates said he is going to spend. Most of his time in leading his foundation and working to solve some really intractable problems including elementary education in Usa.
One sparrow does not make a summer. I know. I know.
us society has to provide methods to encourage productive use of these trillions.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:37 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/03/02/warren-buffetts-thoughts-on-ceo-compensation/

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:06 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd
I am opposed to large concentration of wealth in few hands. But we must analyze the process and how long it is happening.
Gandhi said rich people should be good stewards of wealth and use it for societal good. For a long time thar remained a day dream. But bill gates and Warren buffet donated large chunks of their wealth for charity. Bill gates said he is going to spend. Most of his time in leading his foundation and working to solve some really intractable problems including elementary education in Usa.
One sparrow does not make a summer. I know. I know.
us society has to provide methods to encourage productive use of these trillions.

I think we've digressed.. in any case if poor children in America cannot climb the economic ladder other than for their athletic abilities then America is in trouble. They got to do something about college tuition structure perhaps Govt. should encourage them to attend college by providing financial support than giving them freebies for not working until then the disparity between rich and poor continues to grow or remains the same.

by Kris Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:06 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Cd
Once again your data contradicts your concern about income inequality.
Your data says income equality is not due to lack of wage growth but due to increased income for the top few % people. What is wrong with that group earning more as long as wages are increasing?. Having said that I do not agree that wages kept pace with inflation and wealth creation in the past few decades.
The above globalization talks about mfg imports only but rest of outsourcing is ignored. It jobs and jobs that created products outside Usa for markets outside Usa are not included.
50% of some of our major corporations (ex: coke) profits are earned outside Usa from activities outside Usa. Minimal us labor is involved. But rewards flow to investors from those companies. The income inequality is not happening at the cort of us labor.

That's right what's wrong with the top 1% owning nearly 50% of world's wealth, for that matter why should we cry about Indian politicians filling their coffers, in a way they are smart CEOs making profits for themselves.

>>>If businessmen make their money by swindling and fraud, they should be punished the same way that corrupt politicians should be. That aside, I am not sure why you are focused on income inequality. If the bottom is falling under for those on the lower end of the rung, that is a valid concern, quite simply because it does not become a first world society. That does need to be addressed in the name of decency. However, I am not sure why income differential between the bottom and the top rungs is not seen as having a significant correlation to individual effort in an open system, but rather seen as something that has to be engineered away through governmental policy. Should the litmus test not be whether there is a rising tide that lifts all boats (Kennedy's words, I think) instead of striving for a forced "equality"? I think TBT alludes to the same idea above.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:22 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Let us look at some recent billionaires:
Bill gates, Sergei (google), zuckerberg, jack Dorsey(twitter) etc etc
Obama, bill Clinton, sotomyer, etc
Check avg income (mean or Median).
Check avg house size
Check life expectancy over 40 years
Let's not confuse income inequality with a few successful entrepreneurs, you will find them even in India Ambani, GMR, Sunill Mittal all are self-made billionaires too.

All these billionaires were more than richly rich even before they began their career.

P.S. I did not know that Obama, clinton and Sotomayor are billionaires...(in what currency?)

by truthbetold Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:46 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Let us look at some recent billionaires:
Bill gates, Sergei (google), zuckerberg, jack Dorsey(twitter) etc etc
Obama, bill Clinton, sotomyer, etc
Check avg income (mean or Median).
Check avg house size
Check life expectancy over 40 years
Let's not confuse income inequality with a few successful entrepreneurs, you will find them even in India Ambani, GMR, Sunill Mittal all are self-made billionaires too.

All these billionaires were more than richly rich even before they began their career.

P.S. I did not know that Obama, clinton and Sotomayor are billionaires...(in what currency?)

uppili
it is past even your bedtime.
the topic was income inequality and social mobility.
bill Clinton, obama, and sotomayor are examples of people from poor and difficult backgrounds raising to the top and running the country.

by truthbetold Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:56 am

Uppili
"All these .... career."
That is a sweeping and false statement.
bill gates, Warren buffet, Sam Walton, Larry Ellison etc are all from middle class or small business community.
In Usa lot of old money has lost its clout. Rockfellers and vanderbilts do not dictate terms politicians.
Only Russia and China can claim completely newly minted billionaire class. Europe and India has a mix between old money and new.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:46 am

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Cd
Once again your data contradicts your concern about income inequality.
Your data says income equality is not due to lack of wage growth but due to increased income for the top few % people. What is wrong with that group earning more as long as wages are increasing?. Having said that I do not agree that wages kept pace with inflation and wealth creation in the past few decades.
The above globalization talks about mfg imports only but rest of outsourcing is ignored. It jobs and jobs that created products outside Usa for markets outside Usa are not included.
50% of some of our major corporations (ex: coke) profits are earned outside Usa from activities outside Usa. Minimal us labor is involved. But rewards flow to investors from those companies. The income inequality is not happening at the cort of us labor.

That's right what's wrong with the top 1% owning nearly 50% of world's wealth, for that matter why should we cry about Indian politicians filling their coffers, in a way they are smart CEOs making profits for themselves.

>>>If businessmen make their money by swindling and fraud, they should be punished the same way that corrupt politicians should be. That aside, I am not sure why you are focused on income inequality. If the bottom is falling under for those on the lower end of the rung, that is a valid concern, quite simply because it does not become a first world society. That does need to be addressed in the name of decency. However, I am not sure why income differential between the bottom and the top rungs is not seen as having a significant correlation to individual effort in an open system, but rather seen as something that has to be engineered away through governmental policy. Should the litmus test not be whether there is a rising tide that lifts all boats (Kennedy's words, I think) instead of striving for a forced "equality"? I think TBT alludes to the same idea above.

i think the important point being glossed over is that government policy and legislation presently is rigged and favors the super wealthy. one example -- people often rant on about how high school teachers are not punished when they do a poor job and that teacher unions protect them. as an aside i happen to agree that teachers unions shouldn't have so much power. but what about CEO compensation packages? i don't know of any other profession where the differential in consequences between success and failure is so small! they win they make out like bandits. they lose they make out only slightly less like bandits. where does this leave the retail shareholders who have no power or say in CEO compensation?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:25 am

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/a-tax-system-stacked-against-the-99-percent/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Over the years, some of the wealthy have been enormously successful in getting special treatment, shifting an ever greater share of the burden of financing the country’s expenditures — defense, education, social programs — onto others. Ironically, this is especially true of some of our multinational corporations, which call on the federal government to negotiate favorable trade treaties that allow them easy entry into foreign markets and to defend their commercial interests around the world, but then use these foreign bases to avoid paying taxes.

General Electric has become the symbol for multinational corporations that have their headquarters in the United States but pay almost no taxes — its effective corporate-tax rate averaged less than 2 percent from 2002 to 2012 — just as Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee last year, became the symbol for the wealthy who don’t pay their fair share when he admitted that he paid only 14 percent of his income in taxes in 2011, even as he notoriously complained that 47 percent of Americans were freeloaders. Neither G.E. nor Mr. Romney has, to my knowledge, broken any tax laws, but the sparse taxes they’ve paid violate most Americans’ basic sense of fairness.

by Hellsangel Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:32 am

For those in their ivory towers who think Germany is all that

Insight: The dark side of Germany's jobs miracle
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE8170P120120208?irpc=932

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:35 am

Kris wrote: However, I am not sure why income differential between the bottom and the top rungs is not seen as having a significant correlation to individual effort in an open system, but rather seen as something that has to be engineered away through governmental policy.

because the income differential has come into being not just by individual initiative, hard work, and industriousness which we all admire, but also by engineering governmental policy in favor of the wealthy.

from the times article i linked to:

Traditionally, economists have focused less on issues of equality than on the more mundane issues of growth and efficiency. But here again, our tax system comes in with low marks. Our growth was higher in the era of high top marginal tax rates than it has been since 1980. Economists — even at traditional, conservative international institutions like the International Monetary Fund — have come to realize that excessive inequality is bad for growth and stability. The tax system can play an important role in moderating the degree of inequality. Ours, however, does remarkably little about it.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:27 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>If businessmen make their money by swindling and fraud, they should be punished the same way that corrupt politicians should be. That aside, I am not sure why you are focused on income inequality. If the bottom is falling under for those on the lower end of the rung, that is a valid concern, quite simply because it does not become a first world society. That does need to be addressed in the name of decency. However, I am not sure why income differential between the bottom and the top rungs is not seen as having a significant correlation to individual effort in an open system, but rather seen as something that has to be engineered away through governmental policy. Should the litmus test not be whether there is a rising tide that lifts all boats (Kennedy's words, I think) instead of striving for a forced "equality"? I think TBT alludes to the same idea above.

I think it's called lobbying nothing illegal about it but gives them license to loot, legally ofcourse. When people at the bottom are at a disadvantage in every aspect then it's not not much of a first world, is it?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:45 pm

truthbetold wrote:Uppili
"All these .... career."
That is a sweeping and false statement.
bill gates, Warren buffet, Sam Walton, Larry Ellison etc are all from middle class or small business community.
In Usa lot of old money has lost its clout. Rockfellers and vanderbilts do not dictate terms politicians.
Only Russia and China can claim completely newly minted billionaire class. Europe and India has a mix between old money and new.

On Bill Gates:

Gates was born in Seattle, Washington, to William H. Gates, Sr. and Mary Maxwell Gates. His ancestry includes English, German, and Scots-Irish.[14][15] His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way. Gates's maternal grandfather was JW Maxwell, a national bank president.

On Warren Buffett:

Buffett was born in 1930 in Omaha, Nebraska, the second of three children and only son of U.S. Representative Howard Buffett,[14] a fierce critic of the interventionist New Deal domestic and foreign policy, and his wife Leila (née Stahl). Buffett's DNA report revealed that his paternal ancestors hail from northern Scandinavia, while his maternal ancestors hail from Iberia (present-day Spain[15]) or Estonia.[16] It's been also reported that Warren is not related to Jimmy Buffett despite the same surname.[15] Buffett began his education at Rose Hill Elementary School in Omaha. In 1942, his father was elected to the first of four terms in the United States Congress, and after moving with his family to Washington, D.C., Warren finished elementary school, attended Alice Deal Junior High School, and graduated from Woodrow Wilson High School in 1947,

on Sam Walton:

Yes... he did come from a middle class family and suffered like any other middle class during the depression.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:38 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>If businessmen make their money by swindling and fraud, they should be punished the same way that corrupt politicians should be. That aside, I am not sure why you are focused on income inequality. If the bottom is falling under for those on the lower end of the rung, that is a valid concern, quite simply because it does not become a first world society. That does need to be addressed in the name of decency. However, I am not sure why income differential between the bottom and the top rungs is not seen as having a significant correlation to individual effort in an open system, but rather seen as something that has to be engineered away through governmental policy. Should the litmus test not be whether there is a rising tide that lifts all boats (Kennedy's words, I think) instead of striving for a forced "equality"? I think TBT alludes to the same idea above.

I think it's called lobbying nothing illegal about it but gives them license to loot, legally ofcourse. When people at the bottom are at a disadvantage in every aspect then it's not not much of a first world, is it?

-> Bingo... (an excerpt from the article Max posted)

"Remember, the low tax rates at the top were supposed to spur savings and hard work, and thus economic growth. They didn’t. Indeed, the household savings rate fell to a record level of near zero after President George W. Bush’s two rounds of cuts, in 2001 and 2003, on taxes on dividends and capital gains. What low tax rates at the top did do was increase the return on rent-seeking. It flourished, which meant that growth slowed and inequality grew. This is a pattern that has now been observed across countries. Contrary to the warnings of those who want to preserve their privileges, countries that have increased their top tax bracket have not grown more slowly. Another piece of evidence is here at home: if the efforts at the top were resulting in our entire economic engine’s doing better, we would expect everyone to benefit. If they were engaged in rent-seeking, as their incomes increased, we’d expect that of others to decrease. And that’s exactly what’s been happening. Incomes in the middle, and even the bottom, have been stagnating or falling."

-> so much for conservative mantra "Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs"

by truthbetold Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:06 pm

Cd
Republican argument of any rate cut will generate growth is hogwash.
But so is liberal argument that all tax rate cuts failed to generate growth.
The truth lies somewhere. In between. Where?
In 1950, us income tax rate was approaching 90%. Kennedy cut the taxes. Economy responded. In 1990 India cut its tax rate from 70% plus to 30% plus in steps. It helped the economy greatly. So tax cuts do help. The question is where and when.
The taxes have to provide enough money to run the country efficiently and invest in figure. In Usa, rate cuts since 1980 were somewhat controversial in terms growth.Regan taxes started deficit but spurred growth. Bush tax cuts were not effective and created massive problems at a time of external wars. Somewhere around 30 to 40% for the earners seem to be the sweet spot. Closing the loopholes to make mitt Romney and ge and apple pay their fair share is important.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:13 pm

here is an interesting graphic:

Economic mobility hasn’t changed in a half-century in America Taxmageddon

more info here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-we-pay-taxes-11-charts/255954/

by Sponsored content