Income distribution in America - Quintile breakdowns.

I admit, I read this really quick and could be missing something. But using an online inflation calculator, $29k in 1979 translates to $88k in 2010. Doesn't that mean it is actually easier to jump quintiles today?

Is that $29k adjusted already?
Edit: yes. Will look at actual link
 
panamaican said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was wondering what the point was. So it's that you don't think that people should care about relative income mobility? Or that they shouldn't measure it in relative terms?
 
TeTe said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're confused about something. Aggregate wealth at any given time is a fixed amount. There's no way to argue otherwise. And of course wealth distribution affects people materially. Now, you can argue that if growth in wealth exceeds growth in inequality, everyone can be better off, and that policy should be directed toward ensuring greater growth in wealth rather than toward ensuring more equal distribution, but that's not the same thing as arguing that wealth is currently infinite.

TeTe said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the general point is valid. Growth in top incomes has been almost eating up all of total income growth (and wealth inequality is even worse). That is a crisis for our system. It's getting to the point where the vast majority of Americans *should* care more about distribution than growth because growth has not been benefiting them.
 
TeTe said:
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.
Click to expand...

We should only compare levels of wealth and focus on income disparity when we're trying to convince the poor in America that their poverty is really luxury by the standards of the third world. If we start looking critically at wealth distribution within the confines of the US it's class warfare.
 
ABACA said:
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.
Click to expand...

The bottom 20% will always have the bottom 20%. That's just how numbers work. Sorry that real life is not Lake Woebegone "where the women are strong all the men are good looking and all the people are in the top quintile."
 
OldGoat said:
The bottom 20% will always have the bottom 20%. That's just how numbers work. Sorry that real life is not Lake Woebegone "where the women are strong all the men are good looking and all the people are in the top quintile."
Click to expand...

God damn you're a fucking moron.

That will always be true, too. I get that rate of change is a complex concept for you, but do try to keep up.
 
ABACA said:
God damn you're a fucking moron.

That will always be true, too. I get that rate of change is a complex concept for you, but do try to keep up.
Click to expand...

d$/dt is 0 or - for people like you and I understand you are frustrated. But no reason to express your rage at your shortfalls in such a hostile manner in the War Room. We wouldn't want to lose such an erudite poster.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I was wondering what the point was. So it's that you don't think that people should care about relative income mobility? Or that they shouldn't measure it in relative terms?
Click to expand...

Both.

I have no problem with discussions about how wealth is distributed or with conversations about shrinking purchasing power or any other income/wealth related concern.

I just dislike income mobility conversations because I don't think they tell us anything particularly useful...usually because no one presents the actual relevant information for gaining anything from it.
 
ABACA said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a worthless statistic because the size of the quintiles are not constant. So changing quintiles in today's economy is irrelevant to changing quintiles in another country's economy or in out economy 30 years ago or 30 years in the future.

You could say the average quintiles increasing is a worthless stat. I wouldn't argue with you. My point is that income quintile conversations are worthless in general so I won't fight you there.
 
MarcoW said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where the hell did you get this from?

Switzerland has no minimum wage.
 
ABACA said:
An increase of 20% is significant. How do you think that increase was distributed within the quintiles?
Click to expand...

As a percentage of total income earning households, it's not a big deal to my point.

A 10% increase in the number of dual income households isn't going to fuel 40% changes in income quintile increases. (I say without actually doing the math).
 
panamaican said:
Both.

I have no problem with discussions about how wealth is distributed or with conversations about shrinking purchasing power or any other income/wealth related concern.
Click to expand...

This is different, as it's more about the fundamental fairness of society, I guess unless you believe that ability is very closely related to your parents' income (it would be somewhat self-serving for you to believe that so--no offense--you probably are inclined to, but it's an empirical question).

panamaican said:
I just dislike income mobility conversations because I don't think they tell us anything particularly useful...usually because no one presents the actual relevant information for gaining anything from it.
Click to expand...

I think the information is useful on its own. I think most Americans--even those who self-identify on the right--would prefer a society where a person's status is earned based on their own efforts, and if numbers are showing that people whose parents are poor and likely to grow up poor (and they are), that's a bad sign. And that holds even if you focus on the most talented and educated of the poor and the least talented and educated of the relatively well-off.
 
panamaican said:
It's a worthless statistic because the size of the quintiles are not constant. So changing quintiles in today's economy is irrelevant to changing quintiles in another country's economy or in out economy 30 years ago or 30 years in the future.

You could say the average quintiles increasing is a worthless stat. I wouldn't argue with you. My point is that income quintile conversations are worthless in general so I won't fight you there.
Click to expand...

Well I think we agree, since the actual issue that needs to be addressed is private ownership of productive property, rather than some form of liberal ban-aid.
 
Jack V Savage said:
This is different, as it's more about the fundamental fairness of society, I guess unless you believe that ability is very closely related to your parents' income (it would be somewhat self-serving for you to believe that so--no offense--you probably are inclined to, but it's an empirical question).
Click to expand...


I don't believe that. But what I believe isn't relevant. Comparing income quintile mobility of this generation to the mobility of their parents generation is pointless because the income brackets have changed. They've broadened in scope so no direct comparison is possible.


Jack V Savage said:
I think the information is useful on its own. I think most Americans--even those who self-identify on the right--would prefer a society where a person's status is earned based on their own efforts, and if numbers are showing that people whose parents are poor and likely to grow up poor (and they are), that's a bad sign. And that holds even if you focus on the most talented and educated of the poor and the least talented and educated of the relatively well-off.
Click to expand...

But the numbers aren't showing that because the quintiles are not the same in the 2 groups being compared. IF the quintiles were the same then you could compare mobility and see if it has actually decreased. But when the quintiles have gotten larger, they are no longer good points of reference.

For example: the lowest quintile is 40% larger in 2010 than in 1979. That means a child could earn 40% more than their parents (inflation adjusted) and remain in the same income quintile. Would we really say that a 40% income increase isn't a sign of progress just because the income quintile stays the same? 20% of the population has to be in the bottom quintile - that doesn't mean they haven't seen a rise in their fortunes.
 
You seem to have confused economic growth with social mobility.
 
ABACA said:
Well I think we agree, since the actual issue that needs to be addressed is private ownership of productive property, rather than some form of liberal ban-aid.
Click to expand...

Private ownership of a computer or a shovel is the actual issue? Forgive me for not wanting to go down to Uncle Joe's state operated lawn maintenance depot to check out my Comrade rake to get some leaves for myself or a customer.
 
OldGoat said:
Private ownership of a computer or a shovel is the actual issue? Forgive me for not wanting to go down to Uncle Joe's state operated lawn maintenance depot to check out my Comrade rake to get some leaves for myself or a customer.
Click to expand...

wow, its really either full on red boner or nothing with you Old Goat's eh?
 
MarcoW said:
wow, its really either full on red boner or nothing with you Old Goat's eh?
Click to expand...

So you are for the state to have a monopoly on the ownership of productive property or other forms of capital? If not what percentage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,933
Messages
55,455,882
Members
174,786
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top