The Poor are Not Getting Poorer

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:10 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:12 PM GMT
    You really need to let this go. You're making a fool of yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:22 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidYou really need to let this go. You're making a fool of yourself.


    Not exactly sure what you think needs to be "let go". The facts are quite plain to see. The reality is that the poor have not gotten poorer. The divides have gone up in aggregate numbers but this says nothing relative to what's happening within the numbers which this (newly released) video does a good job of doing. That said, I can see how this would offend your sense of reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:34 PM GMT
    The poor are not getting poorer, it's just that they are not getting richer as quickly as they could have been without Reaganomics/Thatcherism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:42 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidThe poor are not getting poorer, it's just that they are not getting richer as quickly as they could have been without Reaganomics/Thatcherism.


    I'm curious... in what way? Do you have any evidence of this? You could equally make the argument that without Reagonomics and Thatcherism growth would have been a lot slower but the poor would be just as wealthy as they are today. And if you've travelled in the developing world, the poor in the US are wealthy by that standard.

    Would you consider that scenario to be preferable out of curiosity?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:43 PM GMT
    Yet another total load of right-wing BS from riddler, the "Independent".
    As per usual.

    The point is the GAP between rich and poor has grown exponentially larger.
    Thanks to the immoral unfair failed economic policies of the Republican party which create greater economic unfairness and inequity and UNSUSTAINABLE yearly budget deficits.
    As the impartial historical record PROVES.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:54 PM GMT
    riddler78 said



    OMG.... there not poor poor they're just absolute poor.


    Such a lack of EMPATHY from you riddler78 and Righties.....


    Here's quote from a Republican:


    "Besides the shooting, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:57 PM GMT
    rickrick91 saidYet another total load of right-wing BS from riddler, the "Independent".
    As per usual.

    The point is the GAP between rich and poor has grown exponentially larger.
    Thanks to the immoral unfair failed economic policies of the Republican party which create greater economic unfairness and inequity and UNSUSTAINABLE yearly budget deficits.
    As the impartial historical record PROVES.


    As I said in another similarly titled thread by Riddler near the beginning of the month:

    The only reason why it seems like the poor are getting poorer is because those sections of the population are growing immensely while simultaneously the sections of the population with money are shrinking dramatically. More poor people are being added to the population through immigration and high-rate childbirth.

    Imagine a scenario where half of subsaharan Africa or poverty-stricken parts of Russia were imported only for someone to point out how much "greater" the rich and poor gap has gotten and how many more "uninsured" "Americans" there are.

    So the poor aren't getting "poorer", nor are the people who had resources now "becoming poor", but rather the poor population is growing at a disproportionately greater rate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:57 PM GMT
    Don't compare apples and oranges with 1st and 3rd world economies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#CriticismCritics of Thatcherism claim that its successes were obtained only at the expense of great social costs to the British population. Industrial production fell sharply during Thatcher's government, which critics believe increased unemployment — which tripled by 1984 (though receded to one and a half the level she inherited by 1990). When she resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line, a number that kept rising to reach a peak of 30% in 1994 during the Conservative government of John Major, who succeeded Thatcher.[35]

    While credited with reviving Britain's economy, Mrs. Thatcher also was blamed for spurring a doubling in the poverty rate. Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe.[35]

    During her government Britain's Gini coefficient reflected this growing inequality, going from 0.25 in 1979 to 0.34 in 1990.[36]


    With Reaganomics:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
    The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[21] The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988.[22] In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased. The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.[23]
    ...
    The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year, with unemployment averaging 7.5%. Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983–1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980 shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77 under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. However, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), while the average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%), and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%). Furthermore, real wages declined sharply during the Reagan Presidency.[41]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 10:58 PM GMT
    LeanathleticDC saidOMG.... there not poor poor they're just absolute poor.


    Such a lack of EMPATHY from you riddler78 and Righties.....


    Here's quote from a Republican:


    "Besides the shooting, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"


    Lol - speaking of people making fools of themselves...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidDon't compare apples and oranges with 1st and 3rd world economies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#CriticismCritics of Thatcherism claim that its successes were obtained only at the expense of great social costs to the British population. Industrial production fell sharply during Thatcher's government, which critics believe increased unemployment — which tripled by 1984 (though receded to one and a half the level she inherited by 1990). When she resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line, a number that kept rising to reach a peak of 30% in 1994 during the Conservative government of John Major, who succeeded Thatcher.[35]

    While credited with reviving Britain's economy, Mrs. Thatcher also was blamed for spurring a doubling in the poverty rate. Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe.[35]

    During her government Britain's Gini coefficient reflected this growing inequality, going from 0.25 in 1979 to 0.34 in 1990.[36]


    Not sure why context doesn't matter? Should there not be a difference made between absolute and relative poverty? Also with both Reaganomics and Thatcherism, the one significant change during their administrations was the massive drop in inflation which made the economy more efficient though it also meant that in the catchup period, interest rates were high while inflation dropped increasing real borrowing costs in the intervening period. Given that debt is swelling there are some who believe that higher inflation is a better policy given that it means the US can effectively default on its USD denominated debt. Do you agree?

    Again, would this have been better without Thatcher? As I recall she dealt with a significant financial crisis. Of course what you quote doesn't really answer - (1) how is/was the child poverty rate defined? (2) what was Britain's child poverty rate when she took office?

    I'm sure you're aware at least in the American context that the greatest reduction to child poverty in the US was after Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress reformed welfare by significantly reducing benefits for instance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 11:18 PM GMT
    False attribution of cause and effect. Poverty fell across the board in the Clinton years because the economy was booming. Poverty rose during steadily during the Bush years. The same welfare reform, once enacted, can't produce two results.

    All I'm saying is instead of flat or decreasing real wages for the bottom fifth and skyrocketing income for the top fifth,
    800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_
    rates of increase in real wages should and can be more commensurately equal across the board.
    theoretical.png

    They don't have to be exactly the same, just not a flood on top and percolating rain drops on the bottom. That is, if there was any percolating to start with:
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6197HUDSON: When people talk about the economy, what do they mean? When Reagan took office in 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 29 percent of the revenue accruing to wealth. Interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains. By 2004 they'd doubled that proportion to 59 percent of the returns to wealth. So the economic growth did not accrue to labor. Labor's living standards and real wages have not increased since 1979. During all of Reagan and Bush and Clinton, their living standards didn't go up. So the economic growth was all in the overhead of the financial sector. It was all rentier growth.

    JAY: Okay, but the theory is it's supposed to trickle down. So didn't it?

    HUDSON: No. There was--it was sucked up. That's the important thing. Instead of trickling down, there was a huge sucking up of wealth to the top. If it trickled down, the richest 1 percent wouldn't have doubled their share of the returns to wealth. If it had trickled down, real wages would have gone up. Instead, we have the greatest inequality of any country in the Western world. That's not trickling down.


    Thatcher's hand gestures aside, she cannot deny more people were poorer under her. icon_lol.gif

    And remember that the federal deficit ballooned during Reagan.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 24, 2011 11:26 PM GMT
    I'm sure you're aware at least in the American context that the greatest reduction to child poverty in the US was after Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress reformed welfare by significantly reducing benefits for instance.

    Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
    First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
    Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
    First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
    Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.

    I'm so glad you've caught the Dickensian flare

    _The poorest poor hit record highs. Twenty-eight states had increases in the share of people below $10,977 in income, half the poverty line for a family of four. The highest shares were in the District of Columbia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas and South Carolina. Nationally, the poorest poor rose to 6.3 percent.

    the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-e
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2011 12:08 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    LeanathleticDC saidOMG.... there not poor poor they're just absolute poor.


    Such a lack of EMPATHY from you riddler78 and Righties.....


    Here's quote from a Republican:


    "Besides the shooting, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"


    Lol - speaking of people making fools of themselves...



    Truth hurts riddler78.


    How sad that you lack empathy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2011 12:58 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidYou really need to let this go. You're making a fool of yourself.


    Not exactly sure what you think needs to be "let go". The facts are quite plain to see. The reality is that the poor have not gotten poorer. The divides have gone up in aggregate numbers but this says nothing relative to what's happening within the numbers which this (newly released) video does a good job of doing. That said, I can see how this would offend your sense of reality.


    My sense of reality remains squarely intact, not that you would recognize it.

    Poverty since the Bush recession has skyrocketed. Further, many of the basic services that existed pre-welfare reform were eviscerated, meaning that there are few resources, particularly for families. There are more homeless, more children living in poverty, far more children experiencing an educational achievement gap, and far fewer opportunities to break that cycle (as my mother did by getting us off welfare, putting her and myself through college, and ensuring that my brother and I had good paing careers). "Workfare" is increasing the detph and breadth of a permanent underlclass that will never have access to the American dream.

    While importation of goods from other countries has allowed many poor families to have "luxuries" (television, cell phones, etc.) previously out of reach, in every other way: educational attainment, social mobility, health and well-being the poor are losing ground. With the removal of welfare, and the increasing and stunning income inequality, these families are not able to get back on their feet, let alone do better.

    In a country where Bill Gates has $40 billion, the fact that 31 million children live in poverty is a grave justice and indictment of the policies of the past 40 years. The wealth and money is there in a country to take care of our citizens, but we lack the political will to break free from corporate and wealthy interests.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 27, 2011 12:52 AM GMT
    Riddler,

    I did not know the statistics resulting from the two separate studies examining wealth growth in poor families between 1977-1988 and 1975-1997. Apart from the methodology and absolute/relative aspects of the video, the results of these studies are, in my opinion, the most important aspect of the video, and the primary point.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Feb 27, 2011 6:40 AM GMT
    The poor are not getting poorer ....................... there are just a hell of a lot more of them.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14345

    Feb 27, 2011 7:23 PM GMT
    The poor are not getting poorer, many of them have gotten lazier and more dependent on the taxpayers to pay their way in life thanks to overtly generous welfare and other free handouts courtesy of the demoquacks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 27, 2011 8:36 PM GMT
    New York State welfare rates:

    Person living alone $761.00
    Person living with others, but paying his or her own expenses $697.00
    Person living in someone else's household and receiving support and maintenance $472.34
    Person living in a public general hospital or Medicaid-approved long-term facility $ 55.00 or $ 35.00*
    Couple living alone $1,115.00
    Couple living with others, but paying their own expenses $1,057.00
    Couple living in someone else's household and receiving support and maintenance $720.00
    *Social Security sends recipients a $30 federal SSI benefit and New York State sends recipients an additional $25 State Supplemental Personal Needs Allowance (SSPNA) when they reside in a nursing home or a $5 SSPNA when they reside in any other kind of medical facility.


    Yeesh, New York state must be like parts of Mexico in terms of prices for food, utilities and rent if people can get all fat n lazy with such a small amount of money.

    Roadbikebob, what are the criteria for obtaining welfare?

    http://ssa.gov/pubs/11146.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 28, 2011 7:13 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_.


    It is really funny how your graph ties in almost perfectly with this one. I suppose this means that when you tax somebody 30% less on a million dollars they accumulate more money than when you tax somebody 3% less on a few thousand???

    nytimes_taxes_graph.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 28, 2011 7:17 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    So the poor aren't getting "poorer", nor are the people who had resources now "becoming poor", but rather the poor population is growing at a disproportionately greater rate.

    I am going to skip refuting the idea that the poor are not getting poorer and move right to the idea that the people with resources are not becoming poorer.

    Here is the dining room of a recent foreclosure of a once 100 million dollar estate.
    Albemarle-Dining-Room-300x225.jpg
    http://blogs.forbes.com/morganbrennan/2011/02/22/the-foreclosure-of-patricia-kluges-once-100-million-estate/?source=patrick.net#socialvotestarget
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14345

    Mar 06, 2011 5:25 PM GMT
    jpcrabbymiserable, FYI, I probably work a lot harder than you ever did in your entire life. You have no right calling me lazy pal so keep that stupid bullshit to yourself. Oh and by the way, your new profile name THEAMERICANPEOPLE is totally inappropriate for your dumb ass. What a big joke.