Income gap still widening

[Arrian]

Zkrib, the Dems are also for this corporate welfare bull****.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
Agreed with Patroklos on one thing concerning income stats: wealth =! income.

I fully intend to be just such a person (low income sitting on a pile of money/assets with no debt).

-Arrian

What is the point?

JM

[Aeson]

I must admit that posting economic data about movement from quintile to quintile from 1979-1988 clearly illustrates why an increasing income gap from the 90's onwards is... um... well... a different issue and time frame altogether.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Agathon


I have low expectations in that regard when it comes to people who don't know what they're talking about;

Ooh, I sure hope I'm not one of those people.

a class of which you continue to prove yourself a distinguished member.

Rats, I am one. Verily I am pwnd.

The setup for that line was as transparent as your agenda.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
Zkrib, the Dems are also for this corporate welfare bull****.

-Arrian

Too true. But not to the degree Republicans embrace the corporate give aways.

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?

Also true. But much of their do-nothingness arises out of the Damiclean Sword of Bush's veto pen + a sufficient Republican minority in the Senate to block any veto override attempts.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Aeson


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? Fedâ„¢ Golden Parachute FTW.

And then maybe builders will start building normal-sized homes again. Our first home was built in 1947. It was a 3-bed, 2-bath Cape. Do those sorts of houses even get built anymore? We moved to a much larger house, but were were primarily after land, not sq feet (I'd have bought a smaller house on the same land).

I'm with Aeson - there SHOULD be a credit crunch. It strikes me as healthy.

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

here is something up to 2005

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Jaguar

If they're coming from other countries, dealing with the greater level of relative poverty is beyond the scope of what America can do.

As for why they're relatively poorer, I'd guess that it's easier for poorer people to travel to America than it used to be, and the middle class or richer people from other countries, who used to emigrate here a lot, are now more content to stay where they are. This could be total BS, but it seems reasonable.

If you're measuring poverty based on net worth, then sure, but I think most of these studies focus on incomes - and that kind of negates much of your point (the basics of which seem very reasonable to me).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Ooh, I sure hope I'm not one of those people.

Rats, I am one. Verily I am pwnd.

The setup for that line was as transparent as your agenda.

Given that my agenda was that people shouldn't rely on links from ridiculously partisan sources, I can't peer through the murk to see how this is somehow objectionable.

You don't see me posting links from the Socialist Worker for that very reason.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


What is the point?

JM

No point, really, just something to keep in mind when looking at income stats and then talking about "rich" and "poor."

-Arrian

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Kontiki


If you're measuring poverty based on net worth, then sure, but I think most of these studies focus on incomes - and that kind of negates much of your point (the basics of which seem very reasonable to me).

Incomes, too, tend to rise. Many manual labor jobs tend to give raises to vet employees. I worked in one last summer where the starting wage was $9/h with good opportunities for overtime pay. That's certainly not enough to live on. But you got an automatic raise after 3 months, and another one after a year, etc. The people who actually worked there long-term were getting enough to make a modest living. One of my co-workers told me he got his daughter a brand new laptop for her 16th birthday.

The only requirements for the job were a reasonable level of fitness and fluency in English, Spanish, or Vietnamese. It's not hard to get a half-decent job in this country.

[Patroklos]

here is something up to 2005

Hmmm....

Looks like Clinton was the culprit

[OneFootInTheGrave]

and another recent article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/nyregion/09income.html?em&ex=1207886400&en=ddc2fe617400749f&ei=5087%0A

Adjusting census data for inflation, the study compared average family incomes from 2004 to 2006 with those from 1987 to 1989. In Connecticut, income increased by $52,439, or 45 percent, for the top fifth of Connecticut households, while the bottom fifth’s income dropped $4,437, or 17 percent.

The study, released on Tuesday, also found that Connecticut is the only state in the nation where the poorest 20 percent of people lost real ground over the last 20 years (the loss in Rhode Island, $992, or 5 percent, was deemed statistically insignificant).

Nationally, the study showed that the incomes of the richest 20 percent rose an average of 36 percent in the last two decades, while those of the poorest 20 percent rose 11 percent.

Higher income at the upper end and lower income at the bottom meant that Connecticut’s rich earned 8 times as much on average, as its poor, up from 4.6 times when measured two decades ago. Nationally, the gap was 7.3 times between 2004 and 2006, up from 6 times two decades earlier.

well at least it shows the trend... I would have thought that this gap should have been reduced past excellent 1990's but not the case it seems...

[Arrian]

Heh. Look at us. Yay Connecticut. Way to get mentioned in a national news story!

I'd bet a solid chunk of that is due to Fairfield County, the towns (not cities) of which are bedrooms for NYC.

-Arrian

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Agathon


Given that my agenda was that people shouldn't rely on links from ridiculously partisan sources, I can't peer through the murk to see how this is somehow objectionable.

You don't see me posting links from the Socialist Worker for that very reason.

I explicitly mentioned that only the source cited there was important, not the link itself. All it served to prove is that the lower quintile moves up very quickly most of the time, and is replaced by newcomers. It's a fact - you aren't allowed to discredit it because you don't like the people who cite it. You're entitled to disagree with opinions that don't support your ideas; you're not entitled to do the same for facts.