Income gap still widening

[Patroklos]

What is the point?

The point is also that as our populations continue to grey, we can expect those in that situation who are perhaps right now insignificant statistically (but probably not already) to have a significant skewing effect on the numbers of the bottom quintile.

Honestly, from the above, the second my dad retired last year he dropped two quintiles, and that is just becasue he still draws his pension. If his retirement was entirely investment or 401K based, besideds the years he cashed those out he would be in the botton quintile. He has no buisness being counted in the botton quintile.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by 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

Too right. Connecticut is becoming the home for managers of hedge funds.

[Arrian]

Becoming?

I grew up in FF county. Parents worked in NYC. This is not new. It may be accelerating, but it ain't new.

CT's towns, particularly in FF County and the suburbs/exurbs around Hartford, are stinking rich. CT's cities are poverty-ridden hellholes. It goes back a long way.

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

and finally wiki to the rescue



where you can compare to the rest of the world as well ...

for those who don't like graphs - you are converging with Mexico and China, in the scrap for silver, all heavily trailing Brazil who is the undisputed champion in the inequality stakes

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Jaguar


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.

Ok, but that doesn't really address the issue. There is always bottom rung work - always has been. Having poorer immigrants than before would simply mean that a greater percentage of these bottom rung jobs are going to be filled by immigrants. It doesn't change the fact that the bottom rung jobs themselves are relatively worse paying than before.

[Arrian]

How do they even have figures on it for China?

Anybody think NK has a shot at a perfect score?

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


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

-Arrian

Lower income people generally have a much lower percentage of wealth in relation to their income then high income people.

You are an anomaly.

That isn't something to keep in mind.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


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

-Arrian

Lower income people generally have a much lower percentage of wealth in relation to their income then high income people.

You are an anomaly.

That isn't something to keep in mind.

JM

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
for those who don't like graphs - you are converging with Mexico and China, in the scrap for silver, all heavily trailing Brazil who is the undisputed champion in the inequality stakes

I note Russia isn't in the graph, so I wouldn't be so quick to declare Brazil champions.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
How do they even have figures on it for China?

Anybody think NK has a shot at a perfect score?

-Arrian

a perfect 100... all owned Kim Jong Il

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jaguar

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.

The Heritage Foundation tends to be like radiation when it comes to facts. Mutations are common and monstrous.

[Kidlicious]

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.

Thanx for the advice.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I know you won't be totally happy with a Heritage Foundation link, but it's the numbers cited, not necessarily the editorializing, that are important.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1418.cfm

A 1992 Treasury Department study showed that between 1979 and 1988, 86 percent of those in the bottom income quintile moved to a higher quintile, and 35 percent in the top income quintile moved to a lower quintile.

The interesting thing about that is the first statistic. That's a huge number of people moving up within a 10-year period, almost the entire lower quintile. Where do their replacements come from? They don't come from the middle U.S. quintiles. They come from Thailand and Costa Rica and El Salvador.

We didn't even get that many immigrants during that time. While it's true that people move up after graduating college it doesn't change the fact that many people do not move up.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Lower income people generally have a much lower percentage of wealth in relation to their income then high income people.

You are an anomaly.

That isn't something to keep in mind.

JM

Sure it is. There is more to wealth than income. Keeping that in mind doesn't at all change the basic fact that high income tends to lead to wealth! Being aware of the possible wrinkles in the stats is important, because tomorrow somebody might be (mis)using those stats in support of a stupid/repugnant policy.

As to me being an anomaly... you mean b/c I have a high household income? Ok, sure, I'm not the "average American." What does that have to do with anything?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That 35 percent of the upper quintile falling, I wonder if that is primarily the elderly slowely running through their retirement savings?

Actually, how do they account for such people who don't have any income, but are sitting on a stack of money after cashing out their retirement?

A lot of them probably retired. Wealth is not counted, but it does matter.