DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - CBO: The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer

**Haibundadam** · 10-28-2011, 05:53 PM

Why don't you enlighten us on how the CBO has "spun" this issue?

Why don't you tell us how an 18% increase in income over 28 years for the bottom 20% is something to cheer about?

They didn't spin anything... it's just a illogical methodology.

1 - the people in the top 1% and bottom 20% aren't locked in are they? Meaning that you're not comparing the same people over time. Example: What's Mark Zuckerberg worth today? About $15B right? So he's in the top 1% now. What was he worth in 1990; comparitively little right? (granted he was 6 years old). So now he's counted in the top 1% with massive wealth, but it's not recognized that he came from the middle of the pack, so to speak. The same is true in reverse, someone who was worth 200K in 1990, but gambled it away on risky investment may be pennyless today and is counted in the bottom 20%, despite the fact that they once had wealth.

2 - let's assume that someone in the bottom 20% had income increase 5000% in 28 years... is that good? I'd say it is, BUT that person would no longer be counted in the bottom 20% would they? They'd have been replaced with the guy from above who lost his money and has a zero net worth.

That's the illogical methodology. You're not comparing a specific set of people to one another, you're comparing people who have been successful to people who have not, which is why the result is pre-determined.

10-28-2011, 05:53 PM	#8
Haibundadam Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 434 Senior Member	Why don't you enlighten us on how the CBO has "spun" this issue? Why don't you tell us how an 18% increase in income over 28 years for the bottom 20% is something to cheer about? They didn't spin anything... it's just a illogical methodology. 1 - the people in the top 1% and bottom 20% aren't locked in are they? Meaning that you're not comparing the same people over time. Example: What's Mark Zuckerberg worth today? About $15B right? So he's in the top 1% now. What was he worth in 1990; comparitively little right? (granted he was 6 years old). So now he's counted in the top 1% with massive wealth, but it's not recognized that he came from the middle of the pack, so to speak. The same is true in reverse, someone who was worth 200K in 1990, but gambled it away on risky investment may be pennyless today and is counted in the bottom 20%, despite the fact that they once had wealth. 2 - let's assume that someone in the bottom 20% had income increase 5000% in 28 years... is that good? I'd say it is, BUT that person would no longer be counted in the bottom 20% would they? They'd have been replaced with the guy from above who lost his money and has a zero net worth. That's the illogical methodology. You're not comparing a specific set of people to one another, you're comparing people who have been successful to people who have not, which is why the result is pre-determined.
	Quote