Income gap still widening

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kontiki


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.

Yes, but if the immigrants have lower skills (especially language skills) than the natural-born Americans who previously filled those jobs did then it makes sense for their wages to be lower (as they're less productive)...

[Agathon]

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).

Yeah

I actually bothered looking up the official definitions. The whole thing is extremely misleading. The (rather dull) conclusion is that people's incomes vary wildly over time (like if they sell their house, or their parents die, or they win big on the horses, or they retire and live off a trust). But "income", besides not being the same as "wealth", seems to be defined in a way that excludes increases in the worth of assets.

What would be more interesting is relative mobility in wealth over time compared to one's parents.

So the original article is rather pointless, but the reality is probably a lot worse.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


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

The statistics are that low income people have a smaller factor of wealth (wealth = factor * income) then high income people. Quit trying to cloud the statistics with anomalous experience. If 99.9999% is one way, then the .0001% doesn't really matter when discussing the group of people as a whole.

JM

[Arrian]

But "income", besides not being the same as "wealth", seems to be defined in a way that excludes increases in the worth of assets.

Yeah, that's a pretty big wrinkle in the stats.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

The statistics are that low income people have a smaller factor of wealth (wealth = factor * income) then high income people. Quit trying to cloud the statistics with anomalous experience. If 99.9999% is one way, then the .0001% doesn't really matter when discussing the group of people as a whole.

JM

WTF?

Did you read my first post in this thread? I'm not "trying to cloud the statistics."

I'm trying to do the opposite, and I AM NOT TRYING TO ARGUE THAT EVERYTHING IS PEACHY, which seems to be what you're taking away from my posts. Quite the opposite: I think things are ****ed up, and I want changes that would benifit the poor.

Further, what is this 99.99999% stat? Something you made up. You didn't bother to cloud anything. It was better to simply pull a stat out of your ass.

The reality is neither of us knows how much wealthy retirees with low income are skewing the stats, and how much other things (like the asset issue Agathon mentioned) skew the stats. I wasn't trying to make some political point when I said income =! wealth. I was talking about the limitations of statistics. It may very well be as Agathon suspects (worse that it appears, based solely on income).

You're starting to irritate me.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian


Yeah, that's a pretty big wrinkle in the stats.

-Arrian

A huge one, I would say. Most of the rich people I know in New Zealand have family trusts that basically hide all their income from the government. Hardly any of them actually work.

We used to have these things called "Community Services Cards", which low income people would be given to enable them to get discounted prescriptions, free doctors and other stuff. You could even get cheap AA membership (NZ's equivalent of AAA) IIRC.

A lot of the rich people in my home town had these, because they had ridiculously low incomes. Everyone else held them in contempt, since not only were they not paying tax, but they were abusing a system designed to help the poorest New Zealanders.

You have to be pretty shameless to do that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah

I actually bothered looking up the official definitions. The whole thing is extremely misleading. The (rather dull) conclusion is that people's incomes vary wildly over time (like if they sell their house, or their parents die, or they win big on the horses, or they retire and live off a trust). But "income", besides not being the same as "wealth", seems to be defined in a way that excludes increases in the worth of assets.

What would be more interesting is relative mobility in wealth over time compared to one's parents.

So the original article is rather pointless, but the reality is probably a lot worse.

I don't think it's pointless. Mobility is besides the point, as Kontiki is trying to point out. People's incomes are always going to change, they do so throughout ones lifetime for example. But the fact that the lowest fifth's income is decreasing is evidence that generally there is more inequality than there was before. It doesn't say anything about mobility, but it's not really intended to.

[Arrian]

That is utterly shameless, Agathon. Ick.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by MrFun


The people on the bottom make minimum wage in United States.

And in most cases, minimum wage is not sufficient to live off of, so people work full-time but still live in poverty. With minimum wage, you cannot afford to rent an apartment and so forth.

That is patently untrue (assuming you are talking about the bottom quintile, as the rest of this thread is).

Minimum Wage is $5.85 an hour, let's call it $6, which translates to about $12,000 a year. The bottom quintile line is well above that line, at $18k, about $9 an hour.

Further, $12k a year = $1k a month, meaning you can afford (at normal 35% restrictions) a $350/m apartment, which in most places outside of urban areas is possible to find. In urban areas or high-cost-of-living areas, certainly not, but most companies pay more there also, often $1.50-$2 more per hour.

[Kidlicious]

It's pretty hard to find an apartment for $350 in the US Snoopy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369


That is patently untrue (assuming you are talking about the bottom quintile, as the rest of this thread is).

Minimum Wage is $5.85 an hour, let's call it $6, which translates to about $12,000 a year. The bottom quintile line is well above that line, at $18k, about $9 an hour.

Further, $12k a year = $1k a month, meaning you can afford (at normal 35% restrictions) a $350/m apartment, which in most places outside of urban areas is possible to find. In urban areas or high-cost-of-living areas, certainly not, but most companies pay more there also, often $1.50-$2 more per hour.

I lived on less than that when I was a graduate student. On the other hand, my wife had a full time job, we had no children and I would describe us as highly resistant to the temptations of the consumer society. But most people aren't like that. It's going to be pretty tough to save money or deal with the periodic crises of life.

For example, when I was in my 3rd year of the PhD, my father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. I was lucky in that I could take 4 months off to go back to New Zealand and help my mother take care of him (since she worked full time). In no way could we afford the air fare at short notice, so my parents paid for it. My folks were middle class, but I'd hate to think what would have happened if they weren't. My old man would probably have spent the last few months of his life in a soulless hospital, never seeing his children again.

That is when you realize what being poor means.

[Ben Kenobi]

We used to have these things called "Community Services Cards", which low income people would be given to enable them to get discounted prescriptions, free doctors and other stuff. You could even get cheap AA membership (NZ's equivalent of AAA) IIRC.

A lot of the rich people in my home town had these, because they had ridiculously low incomes. Everyone else held them in contempt, since not only were they not paying tax, but they were abusing a system designed to help the poorest New Zealanders.

Perhaps the solution would be to do so through private charities rather then state assistance. Clearly state assistance can be abused in many ways that smaller charities cannot.

[Patroklos]

If 99.9999% is one way, then the .0001% doesn't really matter when discussing the group of people as a whole.

The retired community is rather large in America (and many western nations), their numbers are not insignificant now and will only be more so the future. I don't know what the numbers are, but it seems reasonable that they would skew the numbers noticibly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


The retired community is rather large in America (and many western nations), their numbers are not insignificant now and will only be more so the future. I don't know what the numbers are, but it seems reasonable that they would skew the numbers noticibly.

It will probably bring down the higher income numbers when more people retire.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Perhaps the solution would be to do so through private charities rather then state assistance. Clearly state assistance can be abused in many ways that smaller charities cannot.

Yes, because the rich people who skimp enough to get a government handout card are going to give enough money to private charity to sustain the scheme.