Income distribution in America - Quintile breakdowns.

So, your issue is that unintelligent people from broken homes with small dreams will not reap the same benefits as smart people from functional homes with big dreams.

I can't pretend that outcome surprises me.

There are societal determinants, there are genetic determinants, there's luck. There's a ton of factors that influence economic success or failure. That's not breaking news.

but like you know, we should all be equal and stuff.
 
It's like people can't get over being in some bottom rung of a chart. Even if the money you make now would of put you in a higher rung 20 years ago and you are making more money. You are upset that you are classified in the bottom rung. Even though I and we all are making more money, I wanna be on a different rung on the chart, just to make me feel better about where I am on a chart.

Exactly.

People are upset because they can't brag about being in a higher echelon even though they might already be better off. The arrogance of titles, I suppose.

It's like people would rather have a $20k job they can brag about over a $50k job they can't. I'd rather make more money, your opinion of how be damned.
 
So, your issue is that unintelligent people from broken homes with small dreams will not reap the same benefits as smart people from functional homes with big dreams.

I can't pretend that outcome surprises me.

There are societal determinants, there are genetic determinants, there's luck. There's a ton of factors that influence economic success or failure. That's not breaking news.
Einstein wasn't particularly rich at first.
Picasso died poor?
Poor people aren't necessarily untalented or unintelligent.
 
Exactly.

People are upset because they can't brag about being in a higher echelon even though they might already be better off. The arrogance of titles, I suppose.

It's like people would rather have a $20k job they can brag about over a $50k job they can't. I'd rather make more money, your opinion of how be damned.

I'd rather there be a minimum wage of 40,000 so everyone could have a decent standard of living, is what I would rather have.
 
Einstein wasn't particularly rich at first.
Picasso died poor?
Poor people aren't necessarily untalented or unintelligent.

I don't recall saying they had to be.
 
I'd rather there be a minimum wage of 40,000 so everyone could have a decent standard of living, is what I would rather have.

Good luck to you but I don't care.
 
I'd rather there be a minimum wage of 40,000 so everyone could have a decent standard of living, is what I would rather have.

yea but what do you consider a decent standard of living?

$40k may be ik in the south, but that ain't cutting it in New York, Cali, etc.

See this is where we get into a living wage debate. The thing is no one can ever agree on what should be included (paid for ) in a living wage? Does the wage change depending on what part of the country you are in? Does it change if you have kids?
 
yea but what do you consider a decent standard of living?

$40k may be ik in the south, but that ain't cutting it in New York, Cali, etc.

See this is where we get into a living wage debate. The thing is no one can ever agreeon what should be included (paid for ) in a living wage? Does the wage change depending on what part of the country you are in? Does it change if you have kids?

well, if cities didn't have such ridiculous housing prices... I mean I don't even understand why somebody would want to pay 500,000 to buy an apartment downtown when the same amount could buy them a full bungalow in the suburbs.

That's where government subsidized housing comes in though. Unfortunately it does create ghettoes, but if these jobs are downtown and only rich people can afford to live downtown affordable housing has to be brought in there somehow.
 
Good luck to you but I don't care.

I don't care about maximizing corporate profits by doing things like laying off workers and hiring temporary foreign workers, but it happens.

Actually, I do care about that its horrible.
 
lowest quintile before tax income grew 40.1%
lowest quintile after tax income grew 49.1%

top quintile before tax income grew 77.8%
top quintile after tax income grew 85.3%

.

So for some people the taxes are thrashing them and putting them into the lowest income bracket, while for some, it has not affected them at all.

That is great.
 
I'd rather there be a minimum wage of 40,000 so everyone could have a decent standard of living, is what I would rather have.

Shaq-points-laughs-and-leaves-press-conference.gif
 
So for some people the taxes are thrashing them and putting them into the lowest income bracket, while for some, it has not affected them at all.

That is great.

What it shows is that since 1979, Americans share of after-tax income has increased across the board.

The 40% to 49% increase means that the post tax growth for the lowest 20% was almost 20%. The top 20% only saw a ~10% increase over the same time frame.

Obviously, the top 20% benefit more from their 10% savings than the lowest 20% benefit from their 20% savings since it's more in raw dollars and thus can be invested for greater returns. But everyone has done better in terms of keeping more of their pre-tax dollars.
 
Nope... I just understand how disastrous $40,000 minimum wage policy would be.
right away? yes of course because of the system in place.

But this is basically the minimum wage in Switzerland now and they are doing fine.
 
Note: I have already said that I'm not challenging any of the distribution numbers. Only that the ability to change income quintiles is a worthless statistic. People bring it up all of the time in comparisons to other nations or in comparisons to mobility in the past. But unless the quintiles are the same across nations or across time periods, you can't compare quintile mobility.

That's it, that's all. Nothing else. Nothing about share of growth, nothing about rate of growth. Nothing about wealth or households vs. individuals. I'm not saying anything about any of it. A very specific and limited point, not a broad one.

Why is the ability to change income quintiles a worthless statistic? Do you feel that people should only be allowed to have an issue with wealth distribution in an economy that has no growth? That doesn't make sense.

I would say the fact that the average income in all quintiles has increased from 1976 to the present is a worthless stat considering that my cell phone puts a 1976 super computer to shame.
 
I know what it shows. And based on your graph, dual income households have increase from just under 50% to under 60%. It's not like I'm comparing it to the 50's or the 30's.

Again, a very limited point.

An increase of 20% is significant. How do you think that increase was distributed within the quintiles?
 
i dont care who you are, if you want to make it in this country, you can make it.

For a self-proclaimed "old man" you appear to be displaying the critical thinking faculties of a young boy.

What if I asserted: We could randomly select any male infant born in America today, provide him with 15 years of the highest caliber basketball coaching and be assured that he would be an NBA draft pick by the age of 21.

Hopefully you would find that statement preposterous.

Well, guess what... The genetics of brain are no different than the genetics of body. So if by "make it" you mean enter the highest income quintile, you are living in non-reality. This is why the notion of the "level playing field" is so ridiculous. We are each born with a quality of "raw material" that cannot be enhanced, regardless of willingness and opportunity, beyond a certain fixed point.

While there are some who will be exceptions to the rule (by winning a literal lottery - or a familial one) for the most part the non-rich, through absolutely no fault of their own, are not and will never be truly wealthy within the supply and demand parameters of a capitalist economy.
 
The stats are inflation adjusted to 2010 values.

And yes, everyone can be making more money, rich and poor alike. The rich do not make their money solely from the American poor. That's a fallacy. The rich can make money from many different ventures and the poor can see their income increase simultaneously. To repeat an oft used phrase: It's not a zero-sum game. Everyone can get richer (although the rich are getting richer faster than the poor).

That's because people look at aggregate wealth in America as just that, like some fixed amount that somehow is divided up disproportionately among the masses.

I think it's funny when people gripe about how much CEO's make, like somehow their salary is a game changer to amount a company has to pay it's low income earners. Most of the large companies of the world like Starbucks, Exxon, etc employ tens of thousand of people. If you took the millions that the CEO made (we are talking top of company here) and divided it up among all the employees within the company, they would make about $200 more a year.

When it reality wealth has always been along the lines of a ever expanding stream of revenue and that doesn't always mean that someone is getting cheated. Some do move up and some stay in the same bracket. But the idea is continuously expand your own stream of wealth and not look at what you have in such a "me vs you" way. I'm going to label myself A while I label you B. and we'll fight over semantics while ignoring what we are doing to get ahead.
 
That's because people look at aggregate wealth in America as just that, like some fixed amount that somehow is divided up disproportionately among the masses.

I think it's funny when people gripe about how much CEO's make, like somehow their salary is a game changer to amount a company has to pay it's low income earners. Most of the large companies of the world like Starbucks, Exxon, etc employ tens of thousand of people. If you took the millions that the CEO made (we are talking top of company here) and divided it up among all the employees within the company, they would make about $200 more a year.

When it reality wealth has always been along the lines of a ever expanding stream of revenue and that doesn't always mean that someone is getting cheated. Some do move up and some stay in the same bracket. But the idea is continuously expand your own stream of wealth and not look at what you have in such a "me vs you" way. I'm going to label myself A while I label you B. and we'll fight over semantics while ignoring what we are doing to get ahead.

The issue is that CEO salaries go up while workers get cut and do not get pay raises.
and if that doesn't seem like an issue to you then you may not be thinking clearly.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,816
Messages
55,309,384
Members
174,732
Latest member
herrsackbauer
Back
Top