[Oppofeescom]

The gap is irrelevant as long as the income for the bottom increased enough to still provide a decent living (I don't know off the top of my head if this is the case).

Why do you care how much more someone else might have if you are fine? I know I don't.

[mvjvz]

Is there something preventing me from increasing my wealth? Ummmm.... Nope

[excivaamome]

Perhaps thats what keeps you from attaining wealth Kid (the delusion that you can't), but I am doing just fine.

[Finkevannon]

I have a bit of a problem with their choice of time period, given that the relevant issue is not the gap but the incomes of the lower 1/5 dropping by several percent. I'd guess late 90s was a bit of a peak there, but who knows.

[WebDocMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Income for the lowest fifth has been declining since the 70s. ? Proof?
(In Canada, the income of the lowest quintile have grown faster than the CDN Consumer Price Index).

Which is how, I would measure if the poor where poorer.

(We had the same discussion 2 month ago, with BK)

[KLIMOV25gyi]

I don't see the widening of the gap between rich & poor as a good thing. There's a pretty big gap as it is.

Some of this is due to tax policy. Some of it is the (international) market. Some of it is culture/social (choices that have financial consequences). Some of it is failures in education. And I'm sure I've missed some other causes.

I'd like to see changes to the tax policy. I'd like to see changes to education such that kids can get decent jobs, even if they aren't going to go off to a 4-year liberal arts college. I'd like to see changes to certain policies regarding the availability of (and education concerning) birth control. And I'd love to see some cultural changes with regard to spending beyond one's means - and this includes rich people who like tax cuts but not budget cuts.

In the meantime, hopefully the charitable contributions we've made and will make this year help.

-Arrian

[SkeniaInhilla]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I have a bit of a problem with their choice of time period, given that the relevant issue is not the gap but the incomes of the lower 1/5 dropping by several percent. I'd guess late 90s was a bit of a peak there, but who knows. Why would that matter? Are you saying cost of living peaked too so it's all good if poor people make less?

------------------

This is how the government thanks you for the income gap:

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=dmax

Bail out the idiots who made the mess, devalue the currency, and lets all take the dive for them...

[Celeliamend]

Originally posted by Aeson


Why would that matter? Are you saying cost of living peaked too so it's all good if poor people make less? I'm suggesting that if over the long term, inflation-adjusted income was going up slowly, but at a certain point there was a short-term peak that it fell from somewhat, you could easily suggest that income was dropping when it really was rising in the long term. It's called lying with statistics

[Qrhzbadu]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm suggesting that if over the long term, inflation-adjusted income was going up slowly, but at a certain point there was a short-term peak that it fell from somewhat, you could easily suggest that income was dropping when it really was rising in the long term. It's called lying with statistics Sure, you could draw a line from 20000BC till today, and as long as income stayed above ~$0 you could say long term income is rising for all income brackets. It'd be irrelevant.

It ignores the reality that a decade of falling/stagnant income is a bad thing for an economy. Why do you think the housing bubble was created anyways? Why do you think it's deflating now? It's because owners and prospective owners incomes did not keep up with housing prices. (Which were fueled in part by the "buy in now or be priced out" effect of stagnant/falling income.)

Now that debtors aren't able to make their payments, and new buyers aren't able to afford to purchase, housing prices have collapsed. (Creating myriad problems for those on both sides of ARMs and HELOCs which have their own feedback effects increasing the problems.) The government wants to bail out the lenders (or those who invested in their books), which devalues the currency, and we all end up paying for it.

In that timeframe you want to ignore, Gold has been up to ~$1k, from ~$300. Gas is approaching ~$4/gal from ~$1/gal. The USD is down to less than 3 quarters on the dollar. We all pay. The rich and mildly rich can afford to laugh it off (as the Fed bails them out)... the rest, not so much.

[soprofaxel]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Aeson - I think assuming the bailouts only help the rich is fallacious. In the short term, they certainly help the poor and middle class (by ensuring their banks are stable, etc.) while the rich wouldn't have nearly as high a proportion of their wealth in a bank (as opposed to in securities, etc.) The behavior that necessitated the bailout certainly is atrocious, but that doesn't mean the bailout itself is 'rich-centric' as it is being implied on Apolyton and elsewhere. There is no free money, sorry. You're transferring the bad stuff to the government's books. That is all.

It's propping up the system which is corrupt and which you admit is atrocious. You're taking the hit, transfering it to the government's books, all to perpetuate the problem.

[Flieteewell]

I might add that the financial institutions being bailed out (both directly and indirectly) are laying off employees left and right. The "little guy" is getting thoroughly screwed.

[strongjannabiz]

To be fair, it seems social mobility has been decreasing as well.

[Imampaictjg]

So when the banks go belly up, and NO-ONE is able to borrow for a mortgage without 800+ credit, you're okay with that? Because I'm fairly sure that the people with 800+ credit scores are not generally poor...

[Qnpqbpac]

His point is that the reason that they are relatively poorer is interesting.

[BypeVupyide]

They would presumably be falling out A lot matters also in how you count capital gains or other types of income - those types were not counted, interestingly enough, in the OP but could be counted in other studies.

[Gerribase]

Originally posted by snoopy369
So when the banks go belly up, and NO-ONE is able to borrow for a mortgage without 800+ credit, you're okay with that? Because I'm fairly sure that the people with 800+ credit scores are not generally poor... Yes, I'm ok with that. House prices will drop back down to a range where they are reasonable purchases, people will need to save up for bigger down payments, and stability will be restored. (The credit rating necessary for just about any loan will vary based on the size of the loan, the downpayment, ect. It's not going to be just "800 credit or $0".)

The problem was in large part created because debt was too easy to get. The banks were throwing around this debt to anyone with a pulse because the more loans they make the bigger the bonuses they get. Who gives a damn about solvency? Fed™ Golden Parachute FTW.

[vladekad]

JIAR

[Senasivar]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The gap is irrelevant as long as the income for the bottom increased enough to still provide a decent living (I don't know off the top of my head if this is the case).

Why do you care how much more someone else might have if you are fine? I know I don't. The people on the bottom make minimum wage in United States.

And in most cases, minimum wage is not sufficient to live off of, so people work full-time but still live in poverty. With minimum wage, you cannot afford to rent an apartment and so forth.

[LasTins]

Originally posted by Jaguar

I suggest you start a glorious revolution. Throw off the shackles of oppression! Behead those capitalist pig-dogs whose crippling park-fees keep the lower class under submission! Burn the 35-cent tollbooths on the Garden State Parkway to the ground. That will show them.

[Johnny]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


No need. Americans are finally waking up to how the top 1% of the top 1% have syphoned off the wealth of this nation. The Congress has already reverted to the Democrats, and we move into the White House next January. Then comes the long, arduous task of restoring the reforms of the New Deal. Unfortunately, since the Democrats have become the majority in Congress, hasn't a growing number of Americans come to see this new Congress as the "do-nothing" Congress?