Why those who push the politics of class warfare do not differentiate between relative and absolute income mobility

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

    Jan 15, 2012 9:22 PM GMT
    From the US Treasury Department, on a study of mobility:

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
    • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
    • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
    • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
    • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
    • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups


    But what to make of greater mobility within some European countries and Canada? Notes Greg Mankiw (former CEA chair):
    http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/01/half-full-glass-of-economic-mobility.html
    [...] economic mobility is greater in some European countries. That fact does not surprise me, as those are nations with less inequality. Moving up and down a short ladder is a lot easier than moving up and down a tall one.


    But why do we see greater income inequality? Even the report as presented by Alan Krueger makes the claim that it's overwhelmingly due to technological change:
    http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/the-rise-and-consequences-of-inequality-in-the-united-states-charts (figure 9)
    The Economist notes; "With very few exceptions, the rich have done better over the past 30 years, even in highly egalitarian places like Scandinavia" - supporting the idea that the rise in inequality is not based on domestic policy.
    inequality.png

    Now the solution for inequality that some liberals would have would be to punish the rich who they claim benefit more from society by taxing them more - but guess which OECD country has the most progressive taxation system as measured by the taxes actually paid by the rich?
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html. If you guessed, the US, you'd be right. So why would greater taxation be the solution? A further examination of their world view and how they "make" a living is telling.

    There remain some who believe and insist that Occupy has an appeal - but while the awareness of inequality has risen as suggested by the Pew Poll, the solutions that Americans want have not changed - "There seems to be no increase in support for government measures to reduce income inequality. Only 46 percent considered reducing inequality extremely or very important, while an overwhelming 82 percent placed that importance on economic growth." The Occupy message is one of class warfare and the politics of envy and it is unpopular.
    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/01/11/rising-share-of-americans-see-conflict-between-rich-and-poor/

    Of course some people don't let facts get in the way of rhetoric: http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2113924
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 9:39 PM GMT
    riddler78 said ...There remain some who believe and insist that Occupy has an appeal - but while the awareness of inequality has risen as suggested by the Pew Poll, the solutions that Americans want have not changed - "There seems to be no increase in support for government measures to reduce income inequality. Only 46 percent considered reducing inequality extremely or very important, while an overwhelming 82 percent placed that importance on economic growth." The Occupy message is one of class warfare and the politics of envy and it is unpopular. ...

    This is consistent with a recent poll from Harvard University directed towards the Millennials (age 18-29).
    "Thirty-two percent of Millennials say they are following the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations either very (6%) or somewhat closely (26%), with 66% not following the demonstrations closely. Only twenty-one percent (21%) said they supported the movement. A detailed report on the poll’s findings is available on the Institute’s homepage at http://www.iop.harvard.edu."
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2036673/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 3:04 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said ...There remain some who believe and insist that Occupy has an appeal - but while the awareness of inequality has risen as suggested by the Pew Poll, the solutions that Americans want have not changed - "There seems to be no increase in support for government measures to reduce income inequality. Only 46 percent considered reducing inequality extremely or very important, while an overwhelming 82 percent placed that importance on economic growth." The Occupy message is one of class warfare and the politics of envy and it is unpopular. ...

    This is consistent with a recent poll from Harvard University directed towards the Millennials (age 18-29).
    "Thirty-two percent of Millennials say they are following the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations either very (6%) or somewhat closely (26%), with 66% not following the demonstrations closely. Only twenty-one percent (21%) said they supported the movement. A detailed report on the poll’s findings is available on the Institute’s homepage at http://www.iop.harvard.edu."
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2036673/


    Yeah - the evidence is pretty damning. Of course there are those who are pretty married to the idea that the Occupy movement is spreading because it is only through classwarfare with which they are depending on to win.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 4:17 AM GMT
    More equivocations from those who push class warfare:

    http://news.investors.com/Article/592051/201111171848/occupy-wall-streets-income-inequality-stand-based-on-lies.htm
    "In fact, the average income for the top 1% has dropped about 9% in real terms over the past decade, according to IRS data. Census data show a similar decline for top-income earners. Meanwhile, the Gini Index — a common measure of income inequality — has been almost dead flat since 2000. And to the extent that inequality has climbed over the past 30 years, it’s been in concert with economic growth, rising during the Reagan and Clinton boom years and sagging during economic slumps. . . . Sachs’ claim that Reagan’s policies punished the country with crushing unemployment is even more ludicrous. Reagan’s tax-cutting, deregulating, fiscal conservative policies propelled the economy to an unprecedented era of sustained growth. Between 1981 and 2008, unemployment averaged just 6%. Only after Obama started to undo everything Reagan achieved did unemployment spike, averaging 9.3% since he took office."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:06 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidFrom the US Treasury Department, on a study of mobility:

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
    • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
    • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
    • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
    • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
    • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups


    I'm sorry, but I had to laugh out loud at the absurdity of your 'source'. the report you cited was done WELL before the current global recession and the 2008 bank failures.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:15 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 saidFrom the US Treasury Department, on a study of mobility:

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
    • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
    • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
    • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
    • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
    • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups


    I'm sorry, but I had to laugh out loud at the absurdity of your 'source'. the report you cited was done WELL before the current global recession and the 2008 bank failures.


    Except look at what happened to the top 1% - they lost considerably more than the median but then they rebounded afterwards. Again - look at the demographics of the 1% - they are not mostly bankers or people who work on wall street.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 16, 2012 5:47 PM GMT
    Classwarfare?

    There's no
    Class warfare
    What there IS is a reaction to money being shoveled into a certain group of people's pockets and US being left to pay the bill

    Isn't it strange that trillions of dollars can just up and disappear and NO ONE is responsible
    .... But at the same time we get rulings from the supreme court no less that
    You wanna openly bank roll a candidate and pay his or her way????
    WELL GO RIGHT AHEAD

    .... And where a major political candidate can say .... Well corporations are people too.... And not be laughed right off the political
    Scene
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:55 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 saidFrom the US Treasury Department, on a study of mobility:

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
    • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
    • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
    • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
    • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
    • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups


    I'm sorry, but I had to laugh out loud at the absurdity of your 'source'. the report you cited was done WELL before the current global recession and the 2008 bank failures.


    Except look at what happened to the top 1% - they lost considerably more than the median but then they rebounded afterwards. Again - look at the demographics of the 1% - they are not mostly bankers or people who work on wall street.


    Yes. The top 1% lost more but - as you note - rebounded and everyone else is still screwed.

    I'm not sure what the top 1% not being all bankers has to do with anything.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 9:09 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 saidFrom the US Treasury Department, on a study of mobility:

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
    • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
    • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
    • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
    • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
    • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups


    I'm sorry, but I had to laugh out loud at the absurdity of your 'source'. the report you cited was done WELL before the current global recession and the 2008 bank failures.


    Except look at what happened to the top 1% - they lost considerably more than the median but then they rebounded afterwards. Again - look at the demographics of the 1% - they are not mostly bankers or people who work on wall street.


    Yes. The top 1% lost more but - as you note - rebounded and everyone else is still screwed.

    I'm not sure what the top 1% not being all bankers has to do with anything.


    It's called risk and reward. The rich often put more of their assets exposed to greater risk in things like stocks which allow for them to achieve better returns but as a result, there's also a risk of collapse which is what happened. It's relevant because these were not the direct beneficiaries of the bailouts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 9:14 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 saidFrom the US Treasury Department, on a study of mobility:

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
    • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
    • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
    • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
    • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
    • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups


    I'm sorry, but I had to laugh out loud at the absurdity of your 'source'. the report you cited was done WELL before the current global recession and the 2008 bank failures.


    Except look at what happened to the top 1% - they lost considerably more than the median but then they rebounded afterwards. Again - look at the demographics of the 1% - they are not mostly bankers or people who work on wall street.


    Yes. The top 1% lost more but - as you note - rebounded and everyone else is still screwed.

    I'm not sure what the top 1% not being all bankers has to do with anything.


    It's called risk and reward. The rich often put more of their assets exposed to greater risk in things like stocks which allow for them to achieve better returns but as a result, there's also a risk of collapse which is what happened. It's relevant because these were not the direct beneficiaries of the bailouts.


    No. They were indirect beneficiaries of the bailouts. And given that it was the financial services industry - the direct cause of the implosion and the direct beneficiaries of the bailout - was responsible for convincing Americans giving up pensions for 401ks and IRAs, which also imploded and somewhat recovered from the financial crisis, not sure what your point is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 9:16 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 saidFrom the US Treasury Department, on a study of mobility:

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
    • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
    • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
    • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
    • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
    • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups


    I'm sorry, but I had to laugh out loud at the absurdity of your 'source'. the report you cited was done WELL before the current global recession and the 2008 bank failures.


    Except look at what happened to the top 1% - they lost considerably more than the median but then they rebounded afterwards. Again - look at the demographics of the 1% - they are not mostly bankers or people who work on wall street.


    Yes. The top 1% lost more but - as you note - rebounded and everyone else is still screwed.

    I'm not sure what the top 1% not being all bankers has to do with anything.


    It's called risk and reward. The rich often put more of their assets exposed to greater risk in things like stocks which allow for them to achieve better returns but as a result, there's also a risk of collapse which is what happened. It's relevant because these were not the direct beneficiaries of the bailouts.


    No. They were indirect beneficiaries of the bailouts. And given that it was the financial services industry - the direct cause of the implosion and the direct beneficiaries of the bailout - was responsible for convincing Americans giving up pensions for 401ks and IRAs, which also imploded and somewhat recovered from the financial crisis, not sure what your point is.


    you'd have to ask TropicalMark.
  • xher

    Posts: 168

    Jan 16, 2012 9:44 PM GMT
    I gotta run but two things are immediately apparent:

    A lot of the movement is downward.

    Incomes have gone up due to inflation, if they're using absolutes vs. a "quintile" definition as defined in 96. So have prices.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2012 12:47 AM GMT
    xher saidI gotta run but two things are immediately apparent:

    A lot of the movement is downward.

    Incomes have gone up due to inflation, if they're using absolutes vs. a "quintile" definition as defined in 96. So have prices.


    It's inflation adjusted.