[hellencomstar]

It seems to come down to the fact that you guys think there are much larger swings in income than I do. But without any data (that we can all examine) we're all just guessing on that front.

But it's still not completely relevant.. there are two different concepts here. You guys are more talking about class mobility. The other is income disparity. Forget the growth trends since that's what seems to be tripping you up. The snapshot of the rich in 2007 had a larger share of total income than the snapshot of the rich in 1979.

[seervezex]

It seems to come down to the fact that you guys think there are much larger swings in income than I do. But without any data (that we can all examine) we're all just guessing on that front.

But it's still not completely relevant.. there are two different concepts here. You guys are more talking about class mobility. The other is income disparity. Forget the growth trends since that's what seems to be tripping you up. The snapshot of the rich in 2007 had a larger share of total income than the snapshot of the rich in 1979.

Look at the historical distribution on income (it's available on IRS.gov with a bit of searching). You'll see that the gap between top 1% and bottom 50% narrows most during recessions, and widens during times of national prosperity. Since the late 70's it widened most during Reagans second term, and during Clinton's final 6 years. But it narrowed under GHWBush and GWBush and their recessions. This makes total sense from an intuitive standpoint as the rich have more wealth to lose than the poor, BUT the rich are also less impacted by recessions because of their reserves. Without getting into it, this concept complements the causal reasons for the CBO's report showing that the rate of income for those making the least has risen the least.

[wrbwrbwrb]

These reports are remarkably dumb, but are great fodder for those who what to make arguments about worsening income inequality. Just by methodological design, there is no way under most any policy to yield a different result.

A dose of common sense and skepticism is needed here.

Ah, yes, you are smarter than the CBO. @@

[Dilangfh]

Ah, yes, you are smarter than the CBO. @@

Well I'm not part of a group that's managed our nation $15 Trillion into debt... no, I'm not smart like them...

[mensforyouthis]

Well I'm not part of a group that's managed our nation $15 Trillion into debt... no, I'm not smart like them...

I believe you are confusing the Congressional Budget Office with Congress. Congress appropriates money through legislation which originates in the House of Representatives. The Senate must agree to the same language. Once both chambers agree to the same legislation, the President must sign it. Congress also passes legislation which entitles eligible people to collect money from the government.

The Congressional Budget Office provides economic data and information to congress. It has no authority to spend money or write legislation. Hope that helps.

[RafaelYV]

This is exactly right...

No it's not. Doesn't Geoff Robinson believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time? He certainly believes evolution is "fake", because Pat Robertson, his bible, and his pastor tell him so...so I'll just go on ignoring his analysis of well, any issue.

[oemcheapdownload]

I believe you are confusing the Congressional Budget Office with Congress. Congress appropriates money through legislation which originates in the House of Representatives. The Senate must agree to the same language. Once both chambers agree to the same legislation, the President must sign it. Congress also passes legislation which entitles eligible people to collect money from the government.

The Congressional Budget Office provides economic data and information to congress. It has no authority to spend money or write legislation. Hope that helps.

Nope, I'm not... which is why I said they were "part of the group". Also in the group is the executive, the world of lobbyists, even the courts. They've all worked together to bring about our massive fiscal clusterfluggen. But thanks for your effort.

[exeftWabreava]

No it's not. Doesn't Geoff Robinson believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time? He certainly believes evolution is "fake", because Pat Robertson, his bible, and his pastor tell him so...so I'll just go on ignoring his analysis of well, any issue.

Ummm... OK...

[DagoIgnog]

Nope, I'm not... which is why I said they were "part of the group". Also in the group is the executive, the world of lobbyists, even the courts. They've all worked together to bring about our massive fiscal clusterfluggen. But thanks for your effort.

OK, I apologize for my snarkey post, but really the CBO is not to blame for our debt - even as "part of the group." This lets the Congress and the President off the hook in part. The CBO is an agency that provides important analysis to Congress and does a great job of it, IMO. I can't believe they would try to spin the data and I trust in their ability to interpret it. If we were to look at exactly what they are claiming based on the data, I'm sure we would disagree about the solution to the problem or the causes, but we would agree that the data shows what they say it does. Its a fact, the richest people have a larger percentage of the nation's wealth now than they did 30 years ago.

[soprofaxelbis]

No it's not. Doesn't Geoff Robinson believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time? He certainly believes evolution is "fake", because Pat Robertson, his bible, and his pastor tell him so...so I'll just go on ignoring his analysis of well, any issue.

You really like going down the logical fallacy route. So since you commit a logical fallacy here, should I ignore your analysis on everything?

For the record, you know nothing about my views on the topic of evolution. You assume I am an Young Earth Creationist, which I am not. And you assume my problems with neo-Darwinism are primarily based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. It isn't.

[kuzbaslachek]

I've read few articles about this topic, please allow me share some here. The after-tax income of the country's wealthiest one percent tripled between the years 1979 and 2007. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office offered the findings. The earnings rose at a slower rate for other Americans. The brand new report gives more energy to the national deficit reduction controversy also as to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Resource for this article: After tax income for wealthiest one percent has tripled since 1979. Well this is how I see it in my own opinion.That 1% of us own 40% of our country's great wealth, leaving the 99% to live on the 60% that remains, overlooks the even worse disparity : only 20% of us hold fully 80% of our country's wealth, leaving 8 out of 10 American living amidst the 1 out of 5 dollars that remain to them, just saying.

Here's a paradox for you...

The income of low millionaires (people making between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000), adjusted for inflation dropped nearly 70% between 1979 and 2007...

[diutuartina]

Here's a paradox for you...

The income of low millionaires (people making between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000), adjusted for inflation dropped nearly 70% between 1979 and 2007...

So that somehow should make us overlook the fact that the rich own more and more of the country's wealth and the poor and middle class own less and less?

[Uhmavano]

So that somehow should make us overlook the fact that the rich own more and more of the country's wealth and the poor and middle class own less and less?

It's not the country's wealth... it's the wealth of the person who created it.

If you spend all afternoon baking cookies, you'll end the day with most of the cookies in your neighborhood. Why is that fair?

[bataovady]

Here's a paradox for you...

The income of low millionaires (people making between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000), adjusted for inflation dropped nearly 70% between 1979 and 2007...

What is the point of arguing the nuance of income disparity? It is a fact that the income distribution of United States has become much more unequal over the past 30 years. It's not just the CBO's methodology that supports this, but the OECD's Gini coefficient studies. Not only that, the US has much less income mobility than it used to (in both directions--the rich are less likely to become not rich) We are less mobile than many European countries. The income disparity thing wasn't a huge deal when people felt they had upward mobility. But people are waking up to the fact that we are not as upwardly mobile as we thought. Combine that with declining job prospects for the lower and middle classes and you have a large segment of the population that sees a bleak future.

An interesting article on the psychological effects of high income inequality: Inequality: Unbottled Gini | The Economist

Income inequality may not itself be bad for the economy, but the effect that it has on the losers can't be ignored. Also note that "We are the 99.9%" may be a more apt slogan for the Occupy folks, because it's the top 0.1% that has really been raking in an increasingly disproportionate share of income.

[DadaSeeva]

It is a fact that the income distribution of United States has become much more unequal over the past 30 years. It's not just the CBO's methodology that supports this, but the OECD's Gini coefficient studies. Not only that, the US has much less income mobility than it used to (in both directions--the rich are less likely to become not rich) We are less mobile than many European countries. The income disparity thing wasn't a huge deal when people felt they had upward mobility. But people are waking up to the fact that we are not as upwardly mobile as we thought.

This statement on income mobility, and one made earlier by Politburo highlight the immense flaw in how the CBO report is interpreted. Because the CBO is not comparing the same people over time, you're led to believe that there is little to no income mobility.

Here's something from the NYT (and Fed Reserve of Boston) that details the reality of income mobility in the US in just a 10 year period. For obvious reasons, it's impractical to replicate the study over a 30 year period.

Graphic: How Class Works - New York Times

[Esmeralfaf]

This statement on income mobility, and one made earlier by Politburo highlight the immense flaw in how the CBO report is interpreted. Because the CBO is not comparing the same people over time, you're led to believe that there is little to no income mobility.

Here's something from the NYT (and Fed Reserve of Boston) that details the reality of income mobility in the US in just a 10 year period. For obvious reasons, it's impractical to replicate the study over a 30 year period.

Graphic: How Class Works - New York Times

Neat. But it's not a flaw--just something that needs to be measured separately. Income inequality is not the same as class mobility. The CBO report is about income inequality. As I mentioned, income inequality might not be such a big deal if we had a lot of class mobility. But that isn't so true anymore, at least not upward mobility. Consider:

Between 1947 and 1973, the typical American family’s income roughly doubled in real terms. Between 1973 and 2007, however, it grew by only 22%—and this thanks to the rise of two-worker households. In 2004 men in their 30s earned 12% less in real terms than their fathers did at a similar age, according to Pew’s Economic Mobility Project.

....

Parental income is a better predictor of a child’s future in America than in much of Europe, implying that social mobility is less powerful. Different groups of Americans have different levels of opportunity. Those born to the middle class have about an equal chance of moving up or down the income ladder, according to the Economic Mobility Project. But those born to black middle-class families are much more likely than their white counterparts to fall in rank. The children of the rich and poor, meanwhile, are less mobile than the middle class’s. More than 40% of those Americans born in the bottom quintile remain stuck there as adults. Link: Social mobility and inequality: Upper bound | The Economist

Combine these facts with increasing income inequality, and it's pretty clear that, in general, the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer--there is not significant churn in the richest people for your claimed "flaw" to be important.

[JonnLeejsp]

It's not the country's wealth... it's the wealth of the person who created it.

If you spend all afternoon baking cookies, you'll end the day with most of the cookies in your neighborhood. Why is that fair?

I think he may have a zero-sum idea of how the economy works. As your example illustrates, wealth can be produced by making stuff and exerting energy. Making a bunch of cookies doesn't take cookies away from anyone else.

[bWn4h8QD]

What is the point of arguing the nuance of income disparity? It is a fact that the income distribution of United States has become much more unequal over the past 30 years. It's not just the CBO's methodology that supports this, but the OECD's Gini coefficient studies. Not only that, the US has much less income mobility than it used to (in both directions--the rich are less likely to become not rich) We are less mobile than many European countries. The income disparity thing wasn't a huge deal when people felt they had upward mobility. But people are waking up to the fact that we are not as upwardly mobile as we thought. Combine that with declining job prospects for the lower and middle classes and you have a large segment of the population that sees a bleak future.

An interesting article on the psychological effects of high income inequality: Inequality: Unbottled Gini | The Economist

Income inequality may not itself be bad for the economy, but the effect that it has on the losers can't be ignored. Also note that "We are the 99.9%" may be a more apt slogan for the Occupy folks, because it's the top 0.1% that has really been raking in an increasingly disproportionate share of income.

Maybe the "losers" need to hear "work as hard as you can and achieve and provide for your family" instead of "you are being screwed by some amorphous group".

I would hazard a guess that not having a father present or having a father in prison hurts the poor much, much more than someone else having a lot of money.

[r7rGOhvd]

Neat. But it's not a flaw--just something that needs to be measured separately. Income inequality is not the same as class mobility. The CBO report is about income inequality. As I mentioned, income inequality might not be such a big deal if we had a lot of class mobility. But that isn't so true anymore, at least not upward mobility.

This is simply wrong... the NYT demo showed that in just 10 years 47.5% of those in the bottom quintile moved up. 40% of those in the 4th quintile moved up and 37.5% of those in the 3rd quintile moved up. How is that not a lot of class mobility?????

... in general, the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer--

Yes, the rich are getting richer, and I'll add that the gap between the rich and poor is widening. I'll also add that the fact that it's widening is generally a good thing. For example, the only way to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor is for the poor to make more than the rich over a given time period. I don't want to see a year in which I make more money than Bill Gates.

[VarenHokalos]

I think he may have a zero-sum idea of how the economy works. As your example illustrates, wealth can be produced by making stuff and exerting energy. Making a bunch of cookies doesn't take cookies away from anyone else.

Except you combine that with the fact the over time-the poorest and lower middle classes wages are not keeping up with inflation-while before 1979-they easily did. So simultaneously with the richer getting exponentially richer-the poor are struggling far more than they used to (before 1979).

And putting these facts in the current context-dealing with one of the worst recessions ever and an extremely slow recovery, the federal government is paying out greater and greater sums to the poor and lower middle clases through unemployment comp, welfare, Medicaid and food stamps (and for other reasons which both parties are responsible for-but a large portion of the current deficit is caused by lower tax revenues and greater social program payouts due to this recession) thus running large deficits, while the rich enjoy the lowest tax rates ever, there is obviously a need to raise taxes on those who have done exponentially well even during a time when so many others are suffering-in order to help balance the budget. Yet for some reason the GOP refuses to do what poll after poll indicates 65% of the country supports-which is to slightly raise taxes on the wealthy.

But what is really fueling my disgust with corporate CEOs and the mega wealthy, and the GOP's enslavement to them, is that their salaries are rising exponentially while their workers wages have stagnated-and they have cut jobs and demanded more of their employees, while cutting their benefits obviously in order to presevre their outrageous bonuses and golden parachutes. Yet they cry because Obama and Democrats would dare propose to raise their taxes from 36% to 41% to help cover the costs of this recession. It really disgusts me.