Some Questions on Income Disparity

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, it's called American Dream.
However, only a few will make it to that stage, most just surpass their parents in standard of living, and thus fullfill the dream.

But all are raised to *want* it, even if few can make it. If we're to believe that high income hurts the economy, we must now teach our children that too want the American Dream is actually a bad thing. Or alternatively (and confusingly) that it is OK to want the American Dream, but not OK to actually achieve it.

Also, the level of poverty is relative.
Officials have a cutoff number for poverty. I think it's the same across the country and does not take into account the differences of standard in different regions.
Also, if you make one dollar more than the magic number, you are no longer considered poor. Does not buy you much at the grocery store, but hey, it's good to know you are not really poor.

Also, any given living standard is relative. If you always had what you got, you won't know the difference. If you had less, you are doing better, but making due with less than what you have is being poor.

While true, what does that mean to the question about income disparity?

 

[Twin Fist]

the upper class is growing, the lower class is growing, what does this mean?

there are winners, and losers, and not much else.

if you see your paycheck not keeping up with the cost of living increases? GET A BETTER JOB

DUH

dont *****, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

start your own business on the side, take a second job, but dont expect me to feel bad for you while you cry, piss and moan.

the people going from middle to upper? BE LIKE THEM

you are either moving UP or you will get left behind.

I am moving UP

anyone can do it. You just have to want to, and be willing to do the work. You see your job being phased out? GO BACK TO SCHOOL AT NIGHT and learn something

 

[granfire]

But all are raised to *want* it, even if few can make it. If we're to believe that high income hurts the economy, we must now teach our children that too want the American Dream is actually a bad thing. Or alternatively (and confusingly) that it is OK to want the American Dream, but not OK to actually achieve it.

Since the chances of achieving it are rather minute, why bother with the answer?
I am thinking more along the line that possession comes with responsibility. When you have the ultimate achievement in terms of money, you can do a lot of things a poor person can't afford. Like the rich of the olden days considered it an obligation to invest in philantropical ventures (or it was penance for making it off the poor, who knows).
lastly, it is steeped in Calvinism that God's love is reflected in your worldly possessions.

While true, what does that mean to the question about income disparity?

What?

Oh...
It just goes towards reading the numbers.
The numbers don't lie, but don't tell he whole story. if the poverty level is set at 15.000$ you are still dirt poor, but not so in the sense of the statistic if you have 15.001$
Also, If you made it up to 15k from nothing is not reflected much or if you dropped from 25K.

 

[JohnEdward]

the upper class is growing, the lower class is growing, what does this mean?

there are winners, and losers, and not much else.

if you see your paycheck not keeping up with the cost of living increases? GET A BETTER JOB

DUH

dont *****, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

start your own business on the side, take a second job, but dont expect me to feel bad for you while you cry, piss and moan.

the people going from middle to upper? BE LIKE THEM

you are either moving UP or you will get left behind.

I am moving UP

anyone can do it. You just have to want to, and be willing to do the work. You see your job being phased out? GO BACK TO SCHOOL AT NIGHT and learn something

Since your moving up, let me know when you make the transition from nurse part-time to Doctor. We need to flood the field with doctors, so that it isn't any longer insulated. And what has taken you so long. Why be a lowly nurse? That isn't a strong profession it is on the bottom level of medical professions. Nurses usually are the one who can't hack medical school. especial male nurses. Won't it be pertinent to take your own advice. Lead by example, not by words.

 

[elder999]

Since your moving up, let me know when you make the transition from nurse part-time to Doctor. We need to flood the field with doctors, so that it isn't any longer insulated. And what has taken you so long. Why be a lowly nurse? That isn't a strong profession it is on the bottom level of medical professions. Nurses usually are the one who can't hack medical school. especial male nurses. Won't it be pertinent to take your own advice. Lead by example, not by words.

For the record, I don't agree with John, but this is such a crock-nurses rock.Doctors generally couldn't do without them.And it's not on "the bottom level of medical professions," being above a variety of technicians like phlebotomists in wage and in the heirarchy. They're really in demand, and they make a pretty fair wage.

Plus, being a hetero male nurse is an outstanding way to meet really, really, really downright kinky women. Go John! :lfao:

I also think putting down someone for trying to improve themselves and their lot in life is pretty shameful.

 

[elder999]

.


Now, what I'm saying and asking is this:

1) Is it true that the rich are growing richer while the poor grow poorer?
2) If true, is it a bad thing?
3) If it is a bad thing, is it the reason we are in the economic condition we are in?
4) If it is the cause, will stripping the '1%' of that wealth fix the problem?

1. Yes to both. The amount of wealth controlled by the so-called “1%” has increased-it isn’t just that the rich are growing richer, either.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. No.

There are more poor people in the U.S. than at any other time in the 52 years records on such things have been kept: more than 15% of Americans live below the poverty line, currently defined by the Census Bureau as $22K/yr. for a family of four.Of course, there are "more poor people" in part because there are simply more people, but the percentages should be somewhat alarming.I imagine it'll also be something of a surprise to some of you that the poverty line for a family of four is over $20k/yr.Such is life: at one time, $110k/yr was an awful lot of money, and now it's only comfortably middle-class, maybe upper middle-class, but middle-class nonetheless.

As posted up thread, the quick way to poverty is job loss: something over 6 million jobs have been lost in the recession, and more than 9% of Americans are out of work.

It also keeps getting harder and harder to attain what was once typical American upward mobility-in fact, a great deal of research shows that Americans have less mobility than people in a European countries. For the first time in more than 20 years, employment as a percentage of population has fallen below the rate in the U.K., Germany and the Netherlands. Kids graduating from college are going jobless, and, saddled with debt from student loans, returning to live with their parents. The Census Bureau has even invented a new term for this: doubling up . Something like 3 million adults would be included in those poverty numbers, if not for living at home with their parents.

So yes, same sad song, only sung louder and faster: the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The rich grow fewer in number, or stay the same, and the ranks of the poor increase.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There are more poor people in the U.S. than at any other time in the 52 years records on such things have been kept: more than 15% of Americans live below the poverty line, currently defined by the Census Bureau as $22K/yr. for a family of four.Of course, there are "more poor people" in part because there are simply more people, but the percentages should be somewhat alarming.I imagine it'll also be something of a surprise to some of you that the poverty line for a family of four is over $20k/yr.Such is life: at one time, $110k/yr was an awful lot of money, and now it's only comfortably middle-class, maybe upper middle-class, but middle-class nonetheless.

But the way you state it makes it sound worse than it is. "There are more poor people" is answered by yourself - there are MORE PEOPLE. And according to what I quoted from the Census bureau itself, we're still down 8% from the percentage of people living under the poverty line in 1959, adjusted for inflation.

As posted up thread, the quick way to poverty is job loss: something over 6 million jobs have been lost in the recession, and more than 9% of Americans are out of work.

Yes. This would lead one to think that if the economy recovers, some 3% or so will rejoin the work force (since unemployment tends to hover around 6%, as I recall). Nothing about 1% here that I can see.

It also keeps getting harder and harder to attain what was once typical American upward mobility-in fact, a great deal of research shows that Americans have less mobility than people in a European countries. For the first time in more than 20 years, employment as a percentage of population has fallen below the rate in the U.K., Germany and the Netherlands. Kids graduating from college are going jobless, and, saddled with debt from student loans, returning to live with their parents. The Census Bureau has even invented a new term for this: doubling up . Something like 3 million adults would be included in those poverty numbers, if not for living at home with their parents.

OK, that also sounds like the economy and therefore as temporary as the recession, assuming the recession is temporary (all of them have been so far). Unless you are positing that this is not a recession, but the new normal, I am not seeing anything in the above statements that doesn't automatically get better when the economy recovers.

So yes, same sad song, only sung louder and faster: the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The rich grow fewer in number, or stay the same, and the ranks of the poor increase.

Over my lifetime, the ranks of the poor have decreased, according to the Census Bureau. I have no facts on whether or not the rich are "fewer in number," do you have something in that regard?

 

[WC_lun]

For the record, I don't agree with John, but this is such a crock-nurses rock.Doctors generally couldn't do without them.And it's not on "the bottom level of medical professions," being above a variety of technicians like phlebotomists in wage and in the heirarchy. They're really in demand, and they make a pretty fair wage.

Plus, being a hetero male nurse is an outstanding way to meet really, really, really downright kinky women. Go John! :lfao:

I also think putting down someone for trying to improve themselves and their lot in life is pretty shameful.

Not to derail the thread, but nurses are awsome. They put up with all kinds of crap from patients (sometimes literally) that aren't smart enough to know that nurses are the first responders if they need something, everything from water to resucetation(sp?). Most of the nurses I know are compassionate people and when I have an issue I know they'll listen and help if they can. Much props for your career choice, John.

 

[elder999]

But the way you state it makes it sound worse than it is. "There are more poor people" is answered by yourself - there are MORE PEOPLE. And according to what I quoted from the Census bureau itself, we're still down 8% from the percentage of people living under the poverty line in 1959, adjusted for inflation.

That percentage-15%-is somewhat unprecedented as well. It's not just that there are more people-a higher percentage of them are living at or below the poverty line, and that percentage has been steadily increasing even when the economy was growing. I don't know where you're getting your census quotes, but:

The poverty rate in 2010 (15.1 percent) was the highest poverty rate since 1993 but was 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available.

And it's the "adjusted for inflation" part that's the most damning, really, Bill-the threshold for what constitutes "poverty" has shifted dramatically: that a family of four is living at poverty on $22k/yr, and thus is eligible for assistance, like food stamps, etc., is shameful. I don't know how anyone makes it on $45k/yr., though, never mind $22k/yr.

Yes. This would lead one to think that if the economy recovers, some 3% or so will rejoin the work force (since unemployment tends to hover around 6%, as I recall). Nothing about 1% here that I can see.

No, there's nothing about that 1%, except that most of them don't need jobs.

And who says the economy is going to recover?

OK, that also sounds like the economy and therefore as temporary as the recession, assuming the recession is temporary (all of them have been so far). Unless you are positing that this is not a recession, but the new normal, I am not seeing anything in the above statements that doesn't automatically get better when the economy recovers.

See above.

Over my lifetime, the ranks of the poor have decreased, according to the Census Bureau. I have no facts on whether or not the rich are "fewer in number," do you have something in that regard?

The number of billionaires has actually grown over the last couple of years. It has gotten harder to become a millionaire, though, and it seemed really easy when I was 30. Of course, now having a million dollars in assets merely makes one somewhat successfully upper middle class, what we used to call "comfortable," and then only maybe.

And no, taking away billionaires fortunes isn't going to fix any of these problems. Taxing corporations and the very-wealthy appropriately isn't going to fix unemployment or poverty, though it might prop up our government for another half century.

 

[granfire]

Not to derail the thread, but nurses are awsome. They put up with all kinds of crap from patients (sometimes literally) that aren't smart enough to know that nurses are the first responders if they need something, everything from water to resucetation(sp?). Most of the nurses I know are compassionate people and when I have an issue I know they'll listen and help if they can. Much props for your career choice, John.

Not something that would pop into my head thinking about TF...but hey, the world needs psych ward nurses too! (and no, my mom was one for 30 years, never dreaming about putting either branch of the noble profession down)



Alas...Seems like the devil of Statistics done bit us again...because the fact that the population increased dramatically since 59 had completely passed me by.
While the % points might look favorable, the absolute numbers aren't.


(but elder, it depends on the are you are living at if you can make it on 22k, considering that around here 45k is a very good income)

 

[Twin Fist]

Nurses are the ones that cant hack med school? ok, done with you. I dont have time to waste on this crap.

Since your moving up, let me know when you make the transition from nurse part-time to Doctor. We need to flood the field with doctors, so that it isn't any longer insulated. And what has taken you so long. Why be a lowly nurse? That isn't a strong profession it is on the bottom level of medical professions. Nurses usually are the one who can't hack medical school. especial male nurses. Won't it be pertinent to take your own advice. Lead by example, not by words.

 

[MJS]

Folks,

Unless I'm missing something, this thread isn't about doctors, nurses or the chosen profession of anyone on the forum. Lets try to stick to the OP, ok?

 

[granfire]

Folks,

Unless I'm missing something, this thread isn't about doctors, nurses or the chosen profession of anyone on the forum. Lets try to stick to the OP, ok?

Well, we could discuss income disparity between doctors and nurses. Then again I think not just a few could be shocked to realize how little some doctors make....

 

[JohnEdward]

the upper class is growing, the lower class is growing, what does this mean?

there are winners, and losers, and not much else.

if you see your paycheck not keeping up with the cost of living increases? GET A BETTER JOB

DUH

dont *****, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

start your own business on the side, take a second job, but dont expect me to feel bad for you while you cry, piss and moan.

the people going from middle to upper? BE LIKE THEM

you are either moving UP or you will get left behind.

I am moving UP

anyone can do it. You just have to want to, and be willing to do the work. You see your job being phased out? GO BACK TO SCHOOL AT NIGHT and learn something

Since your moving up, let me know when you make the transition from nurse part-time to Doctor. We need to flood the field with doctors, so that it isn't any longer insulated. And what has taken you so long. Why be a lowly nurse? That isn't a strong profession it is on the bottom level of medical professions. Nurses usually are the one who can't hack medical school. especial male nurses. Won't it be pertinent to take your own advice. Lead by example, not by words.

For the record, I don't agree with John, but this is such a crock-nurses rock.Doctors generally couldn't do without them.And it's not on "the bottom level of medical professions," being above a variety of technicians like phlebotomists in wage and in the heirarchy. They're really in demand, and they make a pretty fair wage.

Plus, being a hetero male nurse is an outstanding way to meet really, really, really downright kinky women. Go John! :lfao:

I also think putting down someone for trying to improve themselves and their lot in life is pretty shameful.

I agree you don't put someone down from trying to improve themselves and you don't put someone down because they can't, they are unable, or the opportunity isn't there. I think it is pretty ignorant and asinine and hypocritical of people to make assumptions and stereotypes of others, like Twin Fist has modeled his comments. Such grossly stereotyping all people who make a living, who want opportunity, a fair shake to improving their lives, is pretty ignorant and asinine and hypocritical as it doesn't recognize such people are after the American Dream. Twin Fist's comments echo the aloofness and pretentious snobbery rebuke humiliating the efforts and capabilities of others, like Twin Fist's fellow nurses and others chancing the American Dream as being lazy hacks who suck off the tax payer teat. Which is totally off base, it is degrading and insulting and meant to be to those in Twin Fist's ranks. Twin Fist's comment is a pretentious snobbery rebuke stressing the lack of tolerance for others in the working class wanting change, who are not content with accepting their lot in life. His very own lot. When we analyze his comment, he clearly feels if he is content in his lot and station in life, and feels no need to "advance", so could every one else. But, when he experiences his own criticisms of others, when it is shown he is in the ranks of those he stereotypes, he rebukes, he is insulted. He didn't like the taste of his own medicine. Or when it hit home, when his rebuke was applied in the same way and similar tone to him. Just as much as those he insults feels when they hear his criticisms.

If you didn't catch my turn-about is fair play (used as the original idiom and not the American idiom) response to Twin Fist. In context, I am not attacking the nursing profession, or those who are nurses. It is so easy to make criticism of others when you haven't looked in the mirror at yourself. The moral of my comment is don't rebuke others for what you see as their short-commings. Especially, if you haven't taken in account of yourself.

My comment was not a personal attack on nursing or nurses (which is a noble profession are way under paid), but rather an instrument of device.

 

[punisher73]

One thing I see that no one really defines is what is "middle class". It's disappearing, it's not disappearing. I think that proper wealth distribution should follow a bell curve. The bulk of your people (70%) should be in the middle part.

Now, here is the thing though. What middle class? You can't really say if you earn between x and y dollars because what's average for Los Angelos is going to be alot in the Midwest. Also, I notice more "pleasure" spending that is now considered "necessity" like cable/satelite, computer and internet access, cell phones etc. Buying new cars instead of slightly used or keeping them a lot longer until they really need to be replaced other than just wanting to get a new one. How much of all this is effecting us?

Not to mention income going towards credit cards for things that couldn't be bought with cash in hand and paying off those mini-loans.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That percentage-15%-is somewhat unprecedented as well. It's not just that there are more people-a higher percentage of them are living at or below the poverty line, and that percentage has been steadily increasing even when the economy was growing. I don't know where you're getting your census quotes, but:

And it's the "adjusted for inflation" part that's the most damning, really, Bill-the threshold for what constitutes "poverty" has shifted dramatically: that a family of four is living at poverty on $22k/yr, and thus is eligible for assistance, like food stamps, etc., is shameful. I don't know how anyone makes it on $45k/yr., though, never mind $22k/yr.

OK, so what you're taking issue with is what the facts mean, not what they are. I get it.

And who says the economy is going to recover?

Why would this recession be any different than any previous recession? Maybe it is. Maybe we won't recover. But before I'd believe that, I'd have to have some kind of evidence that is compelling enough to make me believe that historic cycles don't repeat anymore, that we've fundamentally broken our economy permanently. It could happen; all economies have beginnings and ends - so far. But while they operate, they have cycles and history repeats over and over again. And while in a peak, no one seems to want believe the good times will ever end, and while in a trough, no one seems to want to believe that it will ever end.

Every year, the weather is the worst we've ever experienced. Right? Except that it's NOT.

Recessions are temporary, unless this one is different. And if it is different, then that requires evidence; otherwise I have to believe it is more like other recessions than not.

And no, taking away billionaires fortunes isn't going to fix any of these problems. Taxing corporations and the very-wealthy appropriately isn't going to fix unemployment or poverty, though it might prop up our government for another half century.

I think I can agree with that. So as Mythbusters says, "Failure is always an option."

 

[granfire]

One thing I see that no one really defines is what is "middle class". It's disappearing, it's not disappearing. I think that proper wealth distribution should follow a bell curve. The bulk of your people (70%) should be in the middle part.

Now, here is the thing though. What middle class? You can't really say if you earn between x and y dollars because what's average for Los Angelos is going to be alot in the Midwest. Also, I notice more "pleasure" spending that is now considered "necessity" like cable/satelite, computer and internet access, cell phones etc. Buying new cars instead of slightly used or keeping them a lot longer until they really need to be replaced other than just wanting to get a new one. How much of all this is effecting us?

Not to mention income going towards credit cards for things that couldn't be bought with cash in hand and paying off those mini-loans.

oh, make no mistake, when the rubber hits the road, all those things - maybe minus the cell phone - will be done away with - if the individual has some sort of functioning brain.

But yeah, there is a huge difference of what counts as classy between the coasts. What we have to make a comfortable life would not qualify us for poor in LA or NYC...we' have to get a lot more to do that....

 

[JohnEdward]

Nurses are the ones that cant hack med school? ok, done with you. I dont have time to waste on this crap.

OK, so what you're taking issue with is what the facts mean, not what they are. I get it.



Why would this recession be any different than any previous recession? Maybe it is. Maybe we won't recover. But before I'd believe that, I'd have to have some kind of evidence that is compelling enough to make me believe that historic cycles don't repeat anymore, that we've fundamentally broken our economy permanently. It could happen; all economies have beginnings and ends - so far. But while they operate, they have cycles and history repeats over and over again. And while in a peak, no one seems to want believe the good times will ever end, and while in a trough, no one seems to want to believe that it will ever end.

Every year, the weather is the worst we've ever experienced. Right? Except that it's NOT.

Recessions are temporary, unless this one is different. And if it is different, then that requires evidence; otherwise I have to believe it is more like other recessions than not.

Good points, hope your right.

I look it recessions as hurricanes, we can kind of predict when they will happen, we understand how they happen, and understand their point of origins. We watch them develop, analyze them, know the anatomy, rate them, we predict to a certain extent and give warning, but we don't know the eventual size, or where they will hit until they do. We can chart them historically (thought that is hind-sight) as hurricanes landings are very hard to predict even with modern technology. What we can't do is forecast them or predict them accurately, we are still in the catch-up mode when it comes to hurricanes. We try to use mounds advanced technology together all sorts of data like current weather and future weather conditions, historical cycles and weather patterns to predict the end strength, path, and duration of the hurricane. To our best efforts we are rarely correct. BTW, tornados as another metaphor for a recession is even more tricky to predict. Hurricanes as a metaphor to this labeling of our current economic storm is going to be long and hard going. I would call our current economic situation a minimal Category 4. What gives me that indication? The 1% well even up to the 5% are hanging on tight to their money, and working hard like squirrels gather nuts for the winter, pushing hard a propaganda campaign that they feel entitled to not to give back to the country that make them wealthy. Not take a responsibility to help this country recover, which is an investment they fail to see.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Good points, hope your right.

I look it recessions as hurricanes, we can kind of predict when they will happen, we understand how they happen, and understand their point of origins. We watch them develop, analyze them, know the anatomy, rate them, we predict to a certain extent and give warning, but we don't know the eventual size, or where they will hit until they do. We can chart them historically (thought that is hind-sight) as hurricanes landings are very hard to predict even with modern technology. What we can't do is forecast them or predict them accurately, we are still in the catch-up mode when it comes to hurricanes. We try to use mounds advanced technology together all sorts of data like current weather and future weather conditions, historical cycles and weather patterns to predict the end strength, path, and duration of the hurricane. To our best efforts we are rarely correct. BTW, tornados as another metaphor for a recession is even more tricky to predict. Hurricanes as a metaphor to this labeling of our current economic storm is going to be long and hard going. I would call our current economic situation a minimal Category 4. What gives me that indication? The 1% well even up to the 5% are hanging on tight to their money, and working hard like squirrels gather nuts for the winter, pushing hard a propaganda campaign that they feel entitled to not to give back to the country that make them wealthy. Not take a responsibility to help this country recover, which is an investment they fail to see.

I hope I am right also. But historically, things remain the same more than they change. We've had loads of recessions, but only one beginning, and so far, no end. We will end at some point, but if I am going to believe that this is our 'end', I need more evidence that this is not part of an historical cycle.

I was part of the dot-com bubble. I remember well watching my 401(k) value climb through the ceiling; at one point, I saw early retirement and wealth tied to it. I also kept heavily invested in risky small cap stocks, mostly techs, and I read with enthusiasm the predictions that we had entered a 'new era' and that this was not a bubble. Of course, it was. I saw my 401(k) total value drop from, well never mind. Suffice to say that cashed in, it would not have bought me a small camper, let alone a huge house with a boat. My fault entirely, I blame no one but me! But I was hardly alone; in fact it took me a long time to come to believe that this new normal was not a bubble; and then, of course, it was. Hindsight is 20/20, but we also tend to immediately forget that when we were on top, we thought it would never end. And likewise, when we're on the bottom, we think it will never end.

So far in our country, tops and bottoms of cycles have ended; always.

I also tend to bet contra these last few decades. It has served me well. Recessions like these are huge opportunities to invest. If I'm wrong about it being part of a cycle, of course, I'll lose instead of win. On the other hand, if life as we know it is truly over, I guess it doesn't matter much.

 

[Tez3]

One thing I see that no one really defines is what is "middle class". It's disappearing, it's not disappearing. I think that proper wealth distribution should follow a bell curve. The bulk of your people (70%) should be in the middle part.

Now, here is the thing though. What middle class? You can't really say if you earn between x and y dollars because what's average for Los Angelos is going to be alot in the Midwest. Also, I notice more "pleasure" spending that is now considered "necessity" like cable/satelite, computer and internet access, cell phones etc. Buying new cars instead of slightly used or keeping them a lot longer until they really need to be replaced other than just wanting to get a new one. How much of all this is effecting us?

Not to mention income going towards credit cards for things that couldn't be bought with cash in hand and paying off those mini-loans.

As I've posted on another thread, the 'class' structure in America seems totally decided by how much money you have, thus you can go from being working class to middle class to back, here it's different. Class is decided less by money more by what your ancestors were! it takes several generations to move up or down a class. Here if you were born middle class you will always be middle class. If you are rich working class it will take at least three generations before you are accepted as having changed class and maybe not even then. A friend of my daughters is the son of a Lord, while coming from a very long pedigree and owning land and a castle nearby they actually have less money than I do but they are and always will be upper class. Me, because of my parents and theirs etc, will always be middle class even when I'm skint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class