Economy Study: Middle Class Is Over

[cottagecheesefan]

I know what he is arguing. I'm explaining why it is completely incorrect. First, the data completely contradicts his assumptions. Second, he is wrong on what the terms represent and how they are used.

It's like someone saying "Dogs make the best clouds". Then I explain that dogs are not clouds so it's impossible to qualify them as the "best" or the "worst" clouds. That doesn't mean I don't understand what he's saying, it means what he's saying is wrong. Debating if dogs are the best clouds requires me to accept a completely erroneous premise as true.

Similarly, debating the theory he put forward requires me to accept several completely erroneous premises as true. I can't do that when I know that the data contradicts his premises at every stage.

That and 1% = 1% = 1% no matter how many exponents or generations you throw into a calculation. That’s why the number of kids someone has ... no wait I am not going to explain it again, those like u that can, already get it.

Please tell me what is wrong with this argument. And what completely erroneous premises I use.

In 1950, you have a upper class 1%, a middle class of 49%, and a lower class of 50%

we have already established in this thread, that social class (wealth and income) directly affect the reproduction rates. So there is a differing factor that you multiple the original base population against. Then you multiple that further by a set number of generations.

So for 5 generations we would have this:

the upper class (1 x 2) 5 = 10
middle class (49 x 2.5) 5 = 612.5
lower class (50 x 3) 5 750

Add this up, and after 5 generations, the new total population is 1,372.

the 1% is now .007%
the 49% becomes 44%
the 50% becomes 54%

Do you guys not see this simple math? I am being generous with this reproduction rate factor. And it has been more than 5 generations, further pushing that disparity.

Moreover, in order to form the new 1% as generations go by, you have to lump people from the middle class now into the upper 1% because it shrunk down to .007%, and you now need to compensate. That does not even account for the disparity in wealth from those in the 2-50% wealth category.

I mean, you can show me teen birth rate statistics all you want, but this is simple math.

edit: as well as I also showed two graphs that showed a fairly direct(inverse) correlation between the wealth gap and the population growth.

Not to mention you discount the world population, when in fact we are sending aid to dozens upon dozens of countries and accepting immigrants from those countries, and an influx of illegal people from those countries

I do not disagree that wealthy people use their money and capital to benefit themselves and those around them. But do not try and act like over population isnt a major factor in wealth disparity.

 

[Gandhi]

Please tell me what is wrong with this argument. And what completely erroneous premises I use.

In 1950, you have a upper class 1%, a middle class of 49%, and a lower class of 50%

we have already established in this thread, that social class (wealth and income) directly affect the reproduction rates. So there is a differing factor that you multiple the original base population against. Then you multiple that further by a set number of generations.

So for 5 generations we would have this:

the upper class (1 x 2) 5 = 10
middle class (49 x 2.5) 5 = 612.5
lower class (50 x 3) 5 750

Add this up, and after 5 generations, the new total population is 1,372.

the 1% is now .007%
the 49% becomes 44%
the 50% becomes 54%

Do you guys not see this simple math? I am being generous with this reproduction rate factor. And it has been more than 5 generations, further pushing that disparity.

Moreover, in order to form the new 1% as generations go by, you have to lump people from the middle class now into the upper 1% because it shrunk down to .007%, and you now need to compensate. That does not even account for the disparity in wealth from those in the 2-50% wealth category.

I mean, you can show me teen birth rate statistics all you want, but this is simple math.

edit: as well as I also showed two graphs that showed a fairly direct(inverse) correlation between the wealth gap and the population growth.

Not to mention you discount the world population, when in fact we are sending aid to dozens upon dozens of countries and accepting immigrants from those countries, and an influx of illegal people from those countries

I do not disagree that wealthy people use their money and capital to benefit themselves and those around them. But do not try and act like over population isnt a major factor in wealth disparity.

I’ll try this one more time

Becuase I am comparing what the top 1% of the population makes today to what the top 1% of the population made 50 years ago. There is no .007% in my analysis. The 1% grows with the population because that is simply how fractions work. If I now need to lump the middle class in with the top to keep this 1%, then why is the income of 1% still sky rocketing?

The point you seem to be missing is that the MEDIAN income of this newly formed 1% is going up massively while it stays pretty much flat for everyone else. The accumulation at the top and lack of improvement across every other quintile (including members of the middle class who like the country as a whole, are not having more kids than 50 years ago) simply cant be explained by fertility. Again the 1% as a group, who by definition are growing at the same rate of the total population, are showing massive gains in income.

The rest of the world is not relevant to a discussion on the USA. Although I would add that the bottom of the non western world has actually shown quite big gains in the last 50 years, albeit from a pathetically low base.

 

[WTF2008]

and this is why Bernie Sanders is gonna kill Donald Trump.


The 2016 match up we deserved!

You think he'll run 2020?
He's pretty old. I was rooting for him 2016.

 

[Rational Poster]

You can thank the Federal Reserve for devaluing the dollar and corporate bailouts that favored the already rich.

Welfare, whether it's social welfare or corporate welfare, its immoral, because theft is wrong.

 

[emefer]

Soon GloboChem will own everything and everyone will work at GloboChem.

 

[WTF2008]

I’ll try this one more time

Becuase I am comparing what the top 1% of the population makes today to what the top 1% of the population made 50 years ago. There is no .007% in my analysis. The 1% grows with the population because that is simply how fractions work. If I now need to lump the middle class in with the top to keep this 1%, then why is the income of 1% still sky rocketing?

The point you seem to be missing is that the MEDIAN income of this newly formed 1% is going up massively while it stays pretty much flat for everyone else. The accumulation at the top and lack of improvement across every other quintile (including members of the middle class who like the country as a whole, are not having more kids than 50 years ago) simply cant be explained by fertility. Again the 1% as a group, who by definition are growing at the same rate of the total population, are showing massive gains in income.

The rest of the world is not relevant to a discussion on the USA. Although I would add that the bottom of the non western world has actually shown quite big gains in the last 50 years, albeit from a pathetically low base.

We're dealing with new-ish markets with the whole tech thing.
Computers aren't new, but a fucking selfie website is one of the richest companies in the world.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Again the 1% as a group, who by definition are growing at the same rate of the total population, are showing massive gains in income.

I will also try this one more time. It is not a simple fraction as you imply. It is a complex equation being completely offset by the lower classes populating faster than the upper classes.

Becuase I am comparing what the top 1% of the population makes today to what the top 1% of the population made 50 years ago. There is no .007% in my analysis.\

as you are saying, you are ignoring everything, in a very complex equation. Do you know what calculus is?

That is a completely illogical point of view.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

You think he'll run 2020?
He's pretty old. I was rooting for him 2016.

 

[Otto!]

No, genius, inflation drives wages up exactly as much as it drives up other costs and thus has no impact on affordability of goods and services for workers. If you give the matter any thought at all, you'd see this.

In some cities it takes 6-8 years for housing costs to double. In that same period wages will only increase by a small percentage. That disparity alone is a big drag on many families.

 

[Jack V Savage]

In some cities it takes 6-8 years for housing costs to double. In that same period wages will only increase by a small percentage. That disparity alone is a big drag on many families.

Sure, but that's not relevant to the point. Housing costs rise because of supply and demand issues in addition to inflation, and those issues are much greater contributors to the rise in most markets (to the point that inflation is insignificant in comparison). Likewise, real wages can rise or fall, but the cause isn't inflation (which is adjusted out in the calculations). When I saw that inflation drives costs up relatively uniformly (and most especially drives wages up uniformly), I'm not saying that there is no change in relative prices--only that other factors drive those changes.

 

[TeTe]

Sure, but that's not relevant to the point. Housing costs rise because of supply and demand issues in addition to inflation, and those issues are much greater contributors to the rise in most markets (to the point that inflation is insignificant in comparison). Likewise, real wages can rise or fall, but the cause isn't inflation (which is adjusted out in the calculations). When I saw that inflation drives costs up relatively uniformly (and most especially drives wages up uniformly), I'm not saying that there is no change in relative prices--only that other factors drive those changes.

No need to look any further than this to explain why housing prices have gone up so much in the Bay Area. Can only build up there, no way around it and there was no way to keep up with the population increase over the past 25 years.

 

[HomerThompson]

I’ll try this one more time

Becuase I am comparing what the top 1% of the population makes today to what the top 1% of the population made 50 years ago. There is no .007% in my analysis. The 1% grows with the population because that is simply how fractions work. If I now need to lump the middle class in with the top to keep this 1%, then why is the income of 1% still sky rocketing?

The point you seem to be missing is that the MEDIAN income of this newly formed 1% is going up massively while it stays pretty much flat for everyone else. The accumulation at the top and lack of improvement across every other quintile (including members of the middle class who like the country as a whole, are not having more kids than 50 years ago) simply cant be explained by fertility. Again the 1% as a group, who by definition are growing at the same rate of the total population, are showing massive gains in income.

The rest of the world is not relevant to a discussion on the USA. Although I would add that the bottom of the non western world has actually shown quite big gains in the last 50 years, albeit from a pathetically low base.

Who knew that 1% of any given population group is 1% of said population group? Truly mystifying.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No need to look any further than this to explain why housing prices have gone up so much in the Bay Area. Can only build up there, no way around it and there was no way to keep up with the population increase over the past 25 years.

Yep. And it's worse than that. In practical terms, you can't even build up. "Changes the neighborhood character" or "pollutes the skyline" or some shit. Plus there are people here who seem to genuinely believe that building more would *increase* costs. You can kind of increase housing supply in the neighboring towns, but you run into the same kinds of issues. YIMBYists did win the SF mayoral election, and Newsom is looking good for the governorship, and he's promising 3.5 million new units in the state, and has a plan for it. No guarantee he'll succeed, but it is good that people seem to be recognizing the need for it.

 

[NC252]

I'm buying some of that data, but I'd like to know the number of kids per household in relation to reporting financial hardships. Guess what? Kids are really fucking expensive. If you have a household income of less than 150K, maybe it's not smart to have 4 kids. My office does these charity drives twice a year where they pick a couple of low income families each time, and it always appears to be the same story: single mother (or two parents but one can't work), 6 kids, live in a 2 bedroom apartment, car is on its last legs, etc. It's heartbreaking, but I always think "Why in the fuck do you have 6 kids??" Everyone at my office is at least middle class, if not upper, management are 1%ers. Guess how many have more than 3 kids? Fucking zero, because it's piss-poor planning. And the fucking wage gap shit again the article references...yea, because men make it to upper management positions by rolling in at 9 and leaving as soon as the clock strikes 5. Fuck that. Every single person - man or woman - who's even mid management works minimum 50 hours/week. That's going to be extremely challenging with 3 kids, and basically impossible with more than that.

I'm not insensitive to the fact that wages haven't gone up in proportion to the price of housing, services and consumer goods. Something should be done there. But the reality is that too many kids will hold you back, and it's not fair to the kids either. You don't need to have 4, 5 or 6 kids. 2 is plenty to sap all your energy and attention, and if you're really feeling up to it, go for 3. Anything above that, like I said, poor planning.

EDIT: then there's also the fact that there are too many of us already. We don't need more, we need less. If everyone could just understand that, our governments would be forced to take a good hard look at their systems that stop functioning properly once the population levels off - or god forbid - starts to decline.

If you are on welfare
More kids=More $

 

[Otto!]

Sure, but that's not relevant to the point. Housing costs rise because of supply and demand issues in addition to inflation, and those issues are much greater contributors to the rise in most markets (to the point that inflation is insignificant in comparison). Likewise, real wages can rise or fall, but the cause isn't inflation (which is adjusted out in the calculations). When I saw that inflation drives costs up relatively uniformly (and most especially drives wages up uniformly), I'm not saying that there is no change in relative prices--only that other factors drive those changes.

Agree, but my point is that housing costs rapidly outpacing wages means that many Have less money at the end of the month than they did 5 years ago.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you are on welfare
More kids=More $

Well, mo' money and mo' problems. It's not like it's profitable to have more kids if you're on welfare. You're just offsetting some of the costs.

Agree, but my point is that housing costs rapidly outpacing wages means that many Have less money at the end of the month than they did 5 years ago.

Sure, but you were responding to me saying that inflation doesn't eat away at wages so I was just clarifying my point, which wasn't that some necessities can get less affordable; just that inflation isn't the cause of that.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Who knew that 1% of any given population group is 1% of said population group? Truly mystifying.

then what is his argument? That 1% will always be 1%? So does that mean changing wealth equality means nothings because 1% is always 1%, regardless of external factors? That does not seem very insightful

I would also look at other social issues such as over population and hyper-consumerism. How that offsets other trends, such as wealth distribution.

Moreover, what metric are people using for benefit of humanity. Is it only the wealth gap you guys are implying by 1% is 1% and that system does not work? Hey, over the last 60 years or so, the human population added about 5 billion, along with the expansion of vast networks of roads, telecommunications, etc. Is that not a literal image of humans flourishing more than ever before?

 

[Gandhi]

I will also try this one more time. It is not a simple fraction as you imply. It is a complex equation being completely offset by the lower classes populating faster than the upper classes.



as you are saying, you are ignoring everything, in a very complex equation. Do you know what calculus is?

That is a completely illogical point of view.

I’m ignoring your basic calculation because it does not explain the data presented. Your math by definition does not explain why 1% (rather than your .007) is doing so much better than the rest. Rather than repeat myself further I’ll just bold the points not addressed.

I’ll try this one more time

Becuase I am comparing what the top 1% of the population makes today to what the top 1% of the population made 50 years ago. There is no .007% in my analysis. The 1% grows with the population because that is simply how fractions work. If I now need to lump the middle class in with the top to keep this 1%, then why is the income of 1% still sky rocketing?

The point you seem to be missing is that the MEDIAN income of this newly formed 1% is going up massively while it stays pretty much flat for everyone else. The accumulation at the top and lack of improvement across every other quintile (including members of the middle class who like the country as a whole, are not having more kids than 50 years ago) simply cant be explained by fertility. Again the 1% as a group, who by definition are growing at the same rate of the total population, are showing massive gains in income.

The rest of the world is not relevant to a discussion on the USA. Although I would add that the bottom of the non western world has actually shown quite big gains in the last 50 years, albeit from a pathetically low base.

We're dealing with new-ish markets with the whole tech thing.
Computers aren't new, but a fucking selfie website is one of the richest companies in the world.

Agree, tech is having all kinds of impacts. From replacing manufacturing jobs, to making it easier for musicians/others at the top to dominate the market.

Who knew that 1% of any given population group is 1% of said population group? Truly mystifying.

Do you even calculus bro?????

 

[Gandhi]

Well, mo' money and mo' problems. It's not like it's profitable to have more kids if you're on welfare. You're just offsetting some of the costs.



Sure, but you were responding to me saying that inflation doesn't eat away at wages so I was just clarifying my point, which wasn't that some necessities can get less affordable; just that inflation isn't the cause of that.

Ok the bold, just LOL

 

[Gandhi]

then what is his argument? That 1% will always be 1%? So does that mean changing wealth equality means nothings because 1% is always 1%, regardless of external factors? That does not seem very insightful

I would also look at other social issues such as over population and hyper-consumerism. How that offsets other trends, such as wealth distribution.

Moreover, what metric are people using for benefit of humanity. Is it only the wealth gap you guys are implying by 1% is 1% and that system does not work? Hey, over the last 60 years or so, the human population added about 5 billion, along with the expansion of vast networks of roads, telecommunications, etc. Is that not a literal image of humans flourishing more than ever before?

All over the map here. A very specific point about the USA over the last 50 years is being made. Not the world and not civilization since cave man days. You seem to have acknowledged it already so this response seems a little silly.