It's disturbing that Bernie Sanders is actually receiving support for the Presidency

[CO. Hoosier]

the right continues it's war on unions who have helped ALL labor raise their standard of living and wages, another stab at the livelihood of the middle class. Now they have and are stripping any government benefits they receive, while doing all the opposite for the upper income earners.

As usual, you are wrong.

Bob Iger, the head of Disney Inc. made $44.9 million this year. At the same time, Disney Inc. laid off thousands of well paid middle income IT workers and replaced them with foreign H1-b workers. Disney isn't the only company doing this. President Obama, while exceeding his authority and acting like the narcissistic know-it-all we all know he is, illegally handed out work permits to illegal entrants into the United States. Candidate Hillary Clinton has promised to go even further than Obama did with more illegal entrant executive actions. More H1-b work visas is part of almost all of the political agendas these days. Meanwhile, our government assists in suppression of good pay because the officials who run government receive billions in campaign money from those who want to keep pay low.

While some Republicans, who are in the pocket of companies like Disney Inc., foolishly agree with the Democrats on immigration and H1-b, there are others who see this immigration pandering for what it is, a disgusting pathway to votes. Millions of Americans have no jobs, no education, no future, and no hope, while the dreamers and other immigrants have nothing but hopes for coming here. We are NOT a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of Americans. We had no immigration for most of 40 years while we built a the greatest economy in the world. Donald Trump and a few others in the GOP speak against the disgusting immigration proposals from Obama, Hillary, and a few Republicans. He does this to provide jobs and opportunity for those who live here legally. He does this to begin to rebuild the middle class.

So I guess your next post will be announcing full support for Trump.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

All this proves is that you don't understand basic mathematics.

I already explained to you why your statements on this are wrong, using Algebra 101 terms. That you chose to ignore me is your problem.

You never said this was wrong

You said looking at per capita income as a comparison for the amount of income inequality is not relevant to Rockfish's point. Well, I don't think yours and rockfish's point is relevant and does nothing important to explain how our incomes are becoming more unequal except to whine about the rich getting richer. All you are saying is that more income is flowing to the higher income brackets. You don't ever say why, except you and rockfish are quite sure it is the Republicans' fault. This income movement to higher brackets can easily be explained by more people working in the higher income brackets. Your argument tells us nothing about how and why people migrate to those brackets. You act like the income distribution is static. No, income and its distribution is dynamic and is in constant motion. We need to figure out what is keeping the lower income class at the bottom. There are specific and identifiable reasons why millions of adults are still working minimum wage jobs when they are in their 30's and 40's. And millions of teenagers and young adults are not working at all. All we get from you guys is increasing the minimum wage will fix this. Ugh! You are not even close to recognizing the problem, let alone fixing it. Meanwhile all rockfish can say is anything that addressing these issues is to blame the people who must suffer with the low income section of the economy. Sigh.

Edit: Moreover, contrary to rockfish's blinkered assertion, I have never denied higher compensation in the income distribution stratosphere is a problem. That is a separate issue which ought to be managed. But the real problem with maldistribution of income is not about those people. It is about the maldistribution of education, skills, and other factors that attract income and which income follows.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

As usual, your are wrong.

Bob Iger, the head of Disney Inc. made $44.9 million this year. At the same time, Disney Inc. laid off thousands of well paid middle income IT workers and replaced them with foreign H1-b workers. Disney isn't the only company doing this. President Obama, while exceeding his authority and acting like the narcissistic know-it-all we all know he is, illegally handed out work permits to illegal entrants into the United States. Candidate Hillary Clinton has promised to go even further than Obama did with more illegal entrant executive actions. More H1-b work visas is part of almost all of the political agendas these days. Meanwhile, our government assists in suppression of good pay because the officials who run government receive billions in campaign money from those who want to keep pay low.

While some Republicans, who are in the pocket of companies like Disney Inc., foolishly agree with the Democrats on immigration and H1-b, there are others who see this immigration pandering for what it is, a disgusting pathway to votes. Millions of Americans have no jobs, no education, no future, and no hope, while the dreamers and other immigrants have nothing but hopes for coming here. We are NOT a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of Americans. We had no immigration for most of 40 years while we built a the greatest economy in the world. Donald Trump and a few others in the GOP speak against the disgusting immigration proposals from Obama, Hillary, and a few Republicans. He does this to provide jobs and opportunity for those who live here legally. He does this to begin to rebuild the middle class.

So I guess your next post will be announcing full support for Trump.

Sorry CO, doesn't make me wrong. Before we get to the frequency of your own posting fallacies.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Sorry CO, doesn't make me wrong. Before we get to the frequency of your own posting fallacies.

Ha

Is this all you got for me this morning?

Happy New Year IU-C, and may good health return to you.

 

[mjvcaj]

Yes, but depending on how you define that group, the median of that group may not be the same as the median of the whole economy - and in fact almost certainly won't be, since income distribution doesn't follow a bell curve.

For example, if you define middle class as anyone earning within 50% of the median in either direction, there will be more people below than above, and thus the median of that group will be lower than the overall median, and this disparity will increase as the income gap widens.

Why should it need to be defined? I don't follow your point. It does not need to follow a bell curve to have clear cut segmentation. In other words, it doesn't matter if you decide the middle class is the 25th to 75th percentile or 33rd to 66th, the median is still the middle figure of that population.

I agree with you that the dispersion of income widens and contracts, changing kurtosis of the data.

I'm also not suggesting this is a perfect approach since someone making $100K in NYC is much different than someone making $100K in Fort Wayne, IN. But, it should be representative of the population's median movement, which is what mike was suggesting.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Ha

Is this all you got for me this morning?

Happy New Year IU-C, and may good health return to you.

I don't need more words CO, you are the fail here as is the right argument versus reality. Words don't make your case, you are too frequently, almost every post you make, shown to be a spinner of fictional tales.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't need more words CO, you are the fail here as is the right argument versus reality. Words don't make your case, you are too frequently, almost every post you make, shown to be a spinner of fictional tales.

Thank you Obama

Trump's proposals about carried interest would address this issue. Obama has proposed exactly zero, zip, nada about this.

Edit: Goldman Sachs owns Obama and Clinton, nothing will happen about this if Clinton wins either.

Try again IU-C.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Thank you Obama

Trump's proposals about carried interest would address this issue. Obama has proposed exactly zero, zip, nada about this.

Edit: Goldman Sachs owns Obama and Clinton, nothing will happen about this if Clinton wins either.

Try again IU-C.

Now you're just whining.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm also not suggesting this is a perfect approach since someone making $100K in NYC is much different than someone making $100K in Fort Wayne, IN. But, it should be representative of the population's median movement, which is what mike was suggesting.

That's fine. Ultimately the reason I piped up, though, is because I think this entire conversation is a sideshow. The median income tells us where the guy right in the middle is going, but it doesn't tell us anything about if:

1. He's keeping up with the guys ahead of him, or
2. The guys behind him are keeping up with him.

And that's a far bigger issue, I think, right now.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Now you're just whining.

No

You brought up the declining tax rates among the rich, not me. All I did was point out the reason why. It is no secret that the rates of the top 400 you mentioned coincides with the rise of the hedge fund guys. These people have a sweet tax deal. They have a sweet tax deal because they own too many people in congress and they own the White House. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why those two spend so much time raising funds in Manhattan.

Try again IU-C.

 

[hoot1]

Somewhere in all this the effect of globalization must be factored into the discussion.

U.S. workers no longer have a monopoly on U.S. capital to help improve their productivity and bargain for higher wages. To make matters worse, U.S. workers don't see wages rise along with productivity, and collective bargaining without unions is more difficult.

Globalization gives those with capital in the U.S. more opportunities to make investments while the U.S. middle class and below find foreign labor driving down wages. The wealthy in the U.S. hold much of the capital which is needed in countries abroad for growth. These same countries have abundant labor to offer. Thus those with capital see their wealth and income rise while U.S. wages become stagnant.

What can the U.S. government, with or without Bernie, do about this? Darn little.

 

[Rockfish1]

All you are saying is that more income is flowing to the higher income brackets. You don't ever say why, except you and rockfish are quite sure it is the Republicans' fault

I've posted a great deal on why this occurs. For example, I've recently linked to this, this, and this, all of which address that very question in some detail. You remain ignorant of it because you choose to.

This income movement to higher brackets can easily be explained by more people working in the higher income brackets.

You are innumerate. The top percentages of the population aren't getting wealthier because more people are moving into those percentages. They're getting wealthier because their incomes are soaring away from everyone else's.

All we get from you guys is increasing the minimum wage will fix this. Ugh!

You have a remarkable ability not to hear what other people say.

Meanwhile all rockfish can say is anything that addressing these issues is to blame the people who must suffer with the low income section of the economy. Sigh.

Please repeat what you're trying to say in English.

Moreover, contrary to rockfish's blinkered assertion, I have never denied higher compensation in the income distribution stratosphere is a problem. That is a separate issue which ought to be managed. But the real problem with maldistribution of income is not about those people. It is about the maldistribution of education, skills, and other factors that attract income and which income follows.

It's difficult to know what point you're trying to make, but "the real problem with maldistribution of income" is indeed that the incomes of those at the top are soaring away from everyone else. You seem to presume that the top 1 percent -- and particularly the top 0.1 percent -- are soaring away from everyone else because they have become that much better educated and highly skilled than everyone else. As usual you provide no source for such a claim, but before you look for one, let me help you: That's not true, so you shouldn't waste your time trying to prove that it is.

 

[mjvcaj]

U.S. workers no longer have a monopoly on U.S. capital to help improve their productivity and bargain for higher wages. To make matters worse, U.S. workers don't see wages rise along with productivity, and collective bargaining without unions is more difficult.

It's not just foreign competition hoot. It's technological competition. I've seen several demos with robotic prototypes for fast food (and likely fast casual). These robots will replace the front counter workers and perhaps, one day, the back counter workers. It seems like the most economic approach to a situation where workers need more wages and fast food franchises are playing the low-cost option.

On top of that, computers and software have enabled workers to produce far more than they could a couple of decades ago. Those that are simply enabling technology to do their job more efficiently are the ones being squeezed out.

The other thing that gets brought up but people don't seem to appreciate is the mismatch of labor where there are gaps. If you talk to most trucking companies, drivers are incredibly hard to come by. Restaurants are increasingly harder to staff, particularly those that have minimal value proposition (i.e. franchises) and lower-cost sit down. Even retail is struggling to fill its need for employees. Perhaps there are less people unemployed than the numbers state or more people unemployed or retired by choice?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It's not just foreign competition hoot. It's technological competition. I've seen several demos with robotic prototypes for fast food (and likely fast casual). These robots will replace the front counter workers and perhaps, one day, the back counter workers. It seems like the most economic approach to a situation where workers need more wages and fast food franchises are playing the low-cost option.

On top of that, computers and software have enabled workers to produce far more than they could a couple of decades ago. Those that are simply enabling technology to do their job more efficiently are the ones being squeezed out.

The other thing that gets brought up but people don't seem to appreciate is the mismatch of labor where there are gaps. If you talk to most trucking companies, drivers are incredibly hard to come by. Restaurants are increasingly harder to staff, particularly those that have minimal value proposition (i.e. franchises) and lower-cost sit down. Even retail is struggling to fill its need for employees. Perhaps there are less people unemployed than the numbers state or more people unemployed or retired by choice?

Google will soon eliminate the need for truck drivers, that is where the driverless vehicle is heading. You are right about food prep, and more self checkout means fewer retail. Let alone what Amazon. And though the Randtreiver may have been a disaster for the Monroe Library in the day, it is the future of warehouse work.

All this is to suggest socialism is inevitable. If we only need 10,000 jobs per million people, there is no other choice. It was not long ago Hawking pointed out that we would need fewer jobs in the future. I have not heard anyone here mention they have a job that is not possible to be replaced by a computer/robot. We need to be thinking about this future. Some people just have the bad luck of entering this brave new world before others.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I've posted a great deal on why this occurs. For example, I've recently linked to this, this, and this, all of which address that very question in some detail. You remain ignorant of it because you choose to.

You are innumerate. The top percentages of the population aren't getting wealthier because more people are moving into those percentages. They're getting wealthier because their incomes are soaring away from everyone else's.

You have a remarkable ability not to hear what other people say.

Please repeat what you're trying to say in English.

It's difficult to know what point you're trying to make, but "the real problem with maldistribution of income" is indeed that the incomes of those at the top are soaring away from everyone else. You seem to presume that the top 1 percent -- and particularly the top 0.1 percent -- are soaring away from everyone else because they have become that much better educated and highly skilled than everyone else. As usual you provide no source for such a claim, but before you look for one, let me help you: That's not true, so you shouldn't waste your time trying to prove that it is.

Stay focused big guy

The most recent graph you posted about this was about the percentage increase in total incomes in given brackets ("wage groups"). Your graph does not show the percentage of people in those brackets, which is one of the reasons I find fault with it. Now you are talking about people in the brackets. Which is it? You either agree with me, but can't admit it, or you don't know what you are talking about just as you have demonstrated when we talked about maldistribution of wealth as compared to maldistribution of income.

Maybe more later. Your other comments are just as irrelevant.

 

[Rockfish1]

Stay focused big guy

The most recent graph you posted about this was about the percentage increase in total incomes in given brackets ("wage groups"). Your graph does not show the percentage of people in those brackets, which is one of the reasons I find fault with it. Now you are talking about people in the brackets. Which is it? You either agree with me, but can't admit it, or you don't know what you are talking about just as you have demonstrated when we talked about maldistribution of wealth as compared to maldistribution of income.

Maybe more later. Your other comments are just as irrelevant.

No. Those are not income "brackets" that more people could move into. The chart shows the income increases in different percentages of the income distribution. That's why the labels for each of the lines has a "%" in it. That's the symbol for "percent", which means "per hundred". Again, not an income bracket that could hold any number of people. A percentage. That's the way this is always charted.

 

[Sope Creek]

Stay focused big guy

The most recent graph you posted about this was about the percentage increase in total incomes in given brackets ("wage groups"). Your graph does not show the percentage of people in those brackets, which is one of the reasons I find fault with it. Now you are talking about people in the brackets. Which is it? You either agree with me, but can't admit it, or you don't know what you are talking about just as you have demonstrated when we talked about maldistribution of wealth as compared to maldistribution of income.

Maybe more later. Your other comments are just as irrelevant.

Pardon me for butting in, but aren't the graphed lines both (a) representations of the percentages of people in the designated "brackets" or "wage groups" and (b) the percentage increase in those brackets/wage groups' incomes over time? If not, what are the designations "Top 0.1%", "Top 1.0%", "95th- 99th%" and "Bottom 90%" for?

 

[mjvcaj]

Google will soon eliminate the need for truck drivers, that is where the driverless vehicle is heading. You are right about food prep, and more self checkout means fewer retail. Let alone what Amazon. And though the Randtreiver may have been a disaster for the Monroe Library in the day, it is the future of warehouse work.

All this is to suggest socialism is inevitable. If we only need 10,000 jobs per million people, there is no other choice. It was not long ago Hawking pointed out that we would need fewer jobs in the future. I have not heard anyone here mention they have a job that is not possible to be replaced by a computer/robot. We need to be thinking about this future. Some people just have the bad luck of entering this brave new world before others.

Yea, but how far out is the full-fledged driverless truck Marvin? Realistically, at least five years IMO, given that they only can drive on highways currently and only a handful of states have passed legislation allowing for them. In the meantime, we have a shortage of drivers, meaning the cost of goods is going to go up and transit times will concurrently rise.

I'm far less pessimistic than you. I see an abundance of available jobs and a lack of people willing or trained to fill those jobs.

 

[hoot1]

It's not just foreign competition hoot. It's technological competition. I've seen several demos with robotic prototypes for fast food (and likely fast casual). These robots will replace the front counter workers and perhaps, one day, the back counter workers. It seems like the most economic approach to a situation where workers need more wages and fast food franchises are playing the low-cost option.

On top of that, computers and software have enabled workers to produce far more than they could a couple of decades ago. Those that are simply enabling technology to do their job more efficiently are the ones being squeezed out.

The other thing that gets brought up but people don't seem to appreciate is the mismatch of labor where there are gaps. If you talk to most trucking companies, drivers are incredibly hard to come by. Restaurants are increasingly harder to staff, particularly those that have minimal value proposition (i.e. franchises) and lower-cost sit down. Even retail is struggling to fill its need for employees. Perhaps there are less people unemployed than the numbers state or more people unemployed or retired by choice?

mjvaj, you are dead on by bringing technology into the picture.

I would argue increased high tech rail usage and intermodal transportation will help fill the loss of available trucker gap. Thus technology again plays a roll.

Retail stores are giving way to high tech internet operations such as Amazon. Walmart recognizes this and is already shifting its approach into more internet sales with home and store delivery.

As to restaurants going without employees, the marketplace will solve the restaurant employee problem as we already have too many franchise and non-franchise restaurants.

 

[mjvcaj]

mjvaj, you are dead on by bringing technology into the picture.

I would argue increased high tech rail usage and intermodal transportation will help fill the loss of available trucker gap. Thus technology again plays a roll.

Retail stores are giving way to high tech internet operations such as Amazon. Walmart recognizes this and is already shifting its approach into more internet sales with home and store delivery.

As to restaurants going without employees, the marketplace will solve the restaurant employee problem as we already have too many franchise and non-franchise restaurants.

I agree that the marketplace will work itself out. I find it interesting that Target and Walmart are pushing online so hard because the product in the store continues to deteriorate. Service is worse, product offerings are more heavily weighted towards store brand/generics, and the checkout lines are always long. My point being, they are actually ruining the one advantage that they had over Amazon and e-retail in order to try and switch to an online strategy years too late.

 

[Ladoga]

Yea, but how far out is the full-fledged driverless truck Marvin? Realistically, at least five years IMO, given that they only can drive on highways currently and only a handful of states have passed legislation allowing for them. In the meantime, we have a shortage of drivers, meaning the cost of goods is going to go up and transit times will concurrently rise.

I'm far less pessimistic than you. I see an abundance of available jobs and a lack of people willing or trained to fill those jobs.

In this state, the most manufacturing intensive state in America AND the premier state with regularly increasing manufacturing employment, manufacturing employers are dying for employable applicants. That is also true of the transportation industry. Permanent advertising for employment is readily seen painted on the side of the myriad of 18 wheelers on our roads. Both hard skills and soft skills are missing from the 93 million or more people nationally who are of working age but who have abandoned the workplace. We compete most favorably against competition of all kinds and including those jobs assisted or mostly performed by robotic operations. Twenty five years ago our fully integrated steel mills employed about 40,000 people. Today, we make far more far better quality steel for all kinds of applications in those mills but do it with about 8,000 employees. There are hundreds of similar comparisons.Yet, we still lead the nation in manufacturing employment as a percentage of the state's workforce, the percentage of wages in manufacturing and the percentage of the gross domestic product of the state contributed by manufacturing. Its not stopping, rather growing while other states' manufacturing industries are dead or dying. If states want to abandon efforts to grow their manufacturing industries, Indiana will be glad to have all of them.

 

[NPT]

It's not just foreign competition hoot. It's technological competition. I've seen several demos with robotic prototypes for fast food (and likely fast casual). These robots will replace the front counter workers and perhaps, one day, the back counter workers. It seems like the most economic approach to a situation where workers need more wages and fast food franchises are playing the low-cost option.

On top of that, computers and software have enabled workers to produce far more than they could a couple of decades ago. Those that are simply enabling technology to do their job more efficiently are the ones being squeezed out.

The other thing that gets brought up but people don't seem to appreciate is the mismatch of labor where there are gaps. If you talk to most trucking companies, drivers are incredibly hard to come by. Restaurants are increasingly harder to staff, particularly those that have minimal value proposition (i.e. franchises) and lower-cost sit down. Even retail is struggling to fill its need for employees. Perhaps there are less people unemployed than the numbers state or more people unemployed or retired by choice?

Here is an interesting video on that exact thing.

 

[Rockfish1]

Pardon me for butting in, but aren't the graphed lines both (a) representations of the percentages of people in the designated "brackets" or "wage groups" and (b) the percentage increase in those brackets/wage groups' incomes over time? If not, what are the designations "Top 0.1%", "Top 1.0%", "95th- 99th%" and "Bottom 90%" for?

This is classic CO. Hoosier. He doesn't know the first thing about income inequality, and he can't deny that it's reached an historic level, so he decides to pick a fight about a chart. But he doesn't understand the chart either, so he gets that wrong too. The result is a colossal waste of time -- except for those who enjoy reading "The World According to CO. Hoosier."

From his experience working with experts retained for trial, CO. learned the wrong lesson -- that there is no such thing as expertise. Or at least there's no such thing as an expertise that's superior to his armchair assessments. That's why, for example, he imagines that he's competent to assess climate science, even though (like the rest of us who aren't climate scientists) he plainly isn't. It's also why he's splashing around in this thread.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Pardon me for butting in, but aren't the graphed lines both (a) representations of the percentages of people in the designated "brackets" or "wage groups" and (b) the percentage increase in those brackets/wage groups' incomes over time? If not, what are the designations "Top 0.1%", "Top 1.0%", "95th- 99th%" and "Bottom 90%" for?

Taking the graph at face value

The far left side shows everything at 0. So we know the graph is not intended to measure the distribution of people, nor the distribution of income. The lines separate based upon the percentage growth of the subject of each of the lines. What the lines represent is self explanatory; it is the rate of growth in income of the various strata. It is not the actual growth of incomes in each strata. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out that the growth can be skewed by the number of earners in each group. So, if the number of people in the upper .1% double, and the income stays the same, the upper .1% will show a 100% increase. Much better, and more meaningful would be to show the growth of actual per capita income in the upper .1%, or even the actual income levels that comprise the upper .1% instead of the rate of its growth.

Maldistribution of income is indeed a serious problem. This graph doesn't show how serious the problem is, or what is driving the widening inequality. All we know is that it has gotten measurably worse under Obama and with the QE the FED used to help bail out Obama's crappy recovery. I think it is pretty clear that the monetary policy helped the hedge funds and the others on Wall Street while the immigration policy screwed the unskilled workers. Once you throw in the huge impediments built into our social system that restricts upward mobility, and the power and influence of outfits like Goldman Sachs and its ownership of people like Dodd, Frank, Obama and Clinton, there isn't too much of a mystery about how income inequality is getting worse.

The Democrats offer nothing but stupid graphs that attempt to show the inequality problem while mumbling something about this being all Bush's fault because of the housing bubble.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Taking the graph at face value

The far left side shows everything at 0. So we know the graph is not intended to measure the distribution of people, nor the distribution of income. The lines separate based upon the percentage growth of the subject of each of the lines. What the lines represent is self explanatory; it is the rate of growth in income of the various strata. It is not the actual growth of incomes in each strata. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out that the growth can be skewed by the number of earners in each group. So, if the number of people in the upper .1% double, and the income stays the same, the upper .1% will show a 100% increase. Much better, and more meaningful would be to show the growth of actual per capita income in the upper .1%, or even the actual income levels that comprise the upper .1% instead of the rate of its growth.

Maldistribution of income is indeed a serious problem. This graph doesn't show how serious the problem is, or what is driving the widening inequality. All we know is that it has gotten measurably worse under Obama and with the QE the FED used to help bail out Obama's crappy recovery. I think it is pretty clear that the monetary policy helped the hedge funds and the others on Wall Street while the immigration policy screwed the unskilled workers. Once you throw in the huge impediments built into our social system that restricts upward mobility, and the power and influence of outfits like Goldman Sachs and its ownership of people like Dodd, Frank, Obama and Clinton, there isn't too much of a mystery about how income inequality is getting worse.

The Democrats offer nothing but stupid graphs that attempt to show the inequality problem while mumbling something about this being all Bush's fault because of the housing bubble.

I don't understand how it isn't the distribution of people? Isn't this where the 99% comes from? If the top 1% double, it is called 2%. I don't see how any explanation, including your example earlier, where the top 1% doubles makes any sense unless we normalize at 1%.

 

[Rockfish1]

The far left side shows everything at 0. So we know the graph is not intended to measure the distribution of people, nor the distribution of income.

More innumeracy. The far left side starts not at zero, but at 100 percent, as the graph is clearly labeled. That's because the graph is measuring from a baseline year. It is showing us what has happened to incomes since 1979. Specifically, it shows that those at the very top of the income distribution have seen huge growth since 1979, soaring away from the bottom 90 percent, who have stagnated.

What the lines represent is self explanatory; it is the rate of growth in income of the various strata. It is not the actual growth of incomes in each strata.

No. As the chart is clearly labeled, it shows the actual percentage income growth for each designated percentage of the income distribution. Your innumerate reading of the clearly labeled chart is simply wrong. The chart absolutely does show what you obtusely insist that it does not.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out that the growth can be skewed by the number of earners in each group. So, if the number of people in the upper .1% double, and the income stays the same, the upper .1% will show a 100% increase.

More innumeracy. These are not income brackets that could be skewed by the number of individuals within each bracket. They are percentages (per 100) of the income distribution. If the top line soaring away resulted from more people moving into higher incomes, you wouldn't see growth concentrated in the top one percent, because the movement of additional people into higher incomes would result in a higher percentage moving upward. But this plainly is not what we're seeing. Instead, we see the top one percent of the income distribution soaring away from everyone else.

Apparently you don't recognize it, CO., but you're making a fool of yourself. There is no problem with the chart. It uses the same sort of percentage-based units as every other chart that displays rising income inequality. Don't believe me? Google "income inequality", click "Images", and look at the charts. They're all the same, and they all show the same thing. You're posting like a stubborn idiot.

 

[mjvcaj]

sons.Yet, we still lead the nation in manufacturing employment as a percentage of the state's workforce, the percentage of wages in manufacturing and the percentage of the gross domestic product of the state contributed by manufacturing. Its not stopping, rather growing while other states' manufacturing industries are dead or dying. If states want to abandon efforts to grow their manufacturing industries, Indiana will be glad to have all of them.

Where are you getting your stats? Not saying you are wrong, but what specific data sources are you looking at.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Taking the graph at face value

The far left side shows everything at 0. So we know the graph is not intended to measure the distribution of people, nor the distribution of income. The lines separate based upon the percentage growth of the subject of each of the lines. What the lines represent is self explanatory; it is the rate of growth in income of the various strata. It is not the actual growth of incomes in each strata. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out that the growth can be skewed by the number of earners in each group. So, if the number of people in the upper .1% double, and the income stays the same, the upper .1% will show a 100% increase. Much better, and more meaningful would be to show the growth of actual per capita income in the upper .1%, or even the actual income levels that comprise the upper .1% instead of the rate of its growth.

Maldistribution of income is indeed a serious problem. This graph doesn't show how serious the problem is, or what is driving the widening inequality. All we know is that it has gotten measurably worse under Obama and with the QE the FED used to help bail out Obama's crappy recovery. I think it is pretty clear that the monetary policy helped the hedge funds and the others on Wall Street while the immigration policy screwed the unskilled workers. Once you throw in the huge impediments built into our social system that restricts upward mobility, and the power and influence of outfits like Goldman Sachs and its ownership of people like Dodd, Frank, Obama and Clinton, there isn't too much of a mystery about how income inequality is getting worse.

The Democrats offer nothing but stupid graphs that attempt to show the inequality problem while mumbling something about this being all Bush's fault because of the housing bubble.

COH. The number of people in the top .1% can't double, unless the numbers of people in every other group also double. That's why they are charted as percentages. .1% means the top .1% of the population.

 

[Rockfish1]

COH. The number of people in the top .1% can't double, unless the numbers of people in every other group also double. That's why they are charted as percentages. .1% means the top .1% of the population.

Note the irony: A post titled "Taking the graph at face value" denies every clearly labeled value on the graph.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't understand how it isn't the distribution of people? Isn't this where the 99% comes from? If the top 1% double, it is called 2%. I don't see how any explanation, including your example earlier, where the top 1% doubles makes any sense unless we normalize at 1%.

A couple of things

The graph says it isn't people, and it starts with eveything being 0. The line represents the accumulated growth of each strata over the years. If the number of people in each strata doesn't move in lockstep with income growth, the income difference per capita will be distorted.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

.1% means the top .1% of the population.

the graph says the top .1% is

the top .1% of income.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

the graph says the top .1% is

the top .1% of income.

Are you trolling us?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Are you trolling us?

You are too trollable.

besides when rockfish first posted this graph, he said it was about income. "the wealthiest among us have seized the vast bulk of our rising national income" as a comment about what the graph shows.

 

[MaxCoke]

mjvcaj ....

It's not just foreign competition hoot. It's technological competition. I've seen several demos with robotic prototypes for fast food (and likely fast casual). These robots will replace the front counter workers and perhaps, one day, the back counter workers. It seems like the most economic approach to a situation where workers need more wages and fast food franchises are playing the low-cost option.

On top of that, computers and software have enabled workers to produce far more than they could a couple of decades ago. Those that are simply enabling technology to do their job more efficiently are the ones being squeezed out.

The other thing that gets brought up but people don't seem to appreciate is the mismatch of labor where there are gaps. If you talk to most trucking companies, drivers are incredibly hard to come by. Restaurants are increasingly harder to staff, particularly those that have minimal value proposition (i.e. franchises) and lower-cost sit down. Even retail is struggling to fill its need for employees. Perhaps there are less people unemployed than the numbers state or more people unemployed or retired by choice?

I work in the moving industry. Nobody wants to be on the road moving other peoples shit. Nobody. These guys can make 100k+. Can't get anyone to do it. It's a hard job. There are jobs out there for uneducated people but they require hard work. They are not up for that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You are too trollable.

besides when rockfish first posted this graph, he said it was about income. "the wealthiest among us have seized the vast bulk of our rising national income" as a comment about what the graph shows.

Because that is what it shows.

If you don't even understand what a percentage is, I don't see why you should even bother being in this conversation. This is ridiculous. If you ever figure out where you're going wrong here, you are going to be tremendously embarrassed.

 

[mjvcaj]

mjvcaj ....

I work in the moving industry. Nobody wants to be on the road moving other peoples shit. Nobody. These guys can make 100k+. Can't get anyone to do it. It's a hard job. There are jobs out there for uneducated people but they require hard work. They are not up for that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

More innumeracy. The far left side starts not at zero, but at 100 percent, as the graph is clearly labeled. That's because the graph is measuring from a baseline year. It is showing us what has happened to incomes since 1979. Specifically, it shows that those at the very top of the income distribution have seen huge growth since 1979, soaring away from the bottom 90 percent, who have stagnated.

No. As the chart is clearly labeled, it shows the actual percentage income growth for each designated percentage of the income distribution. Your innumerate reading of the clearly labeled chart is simply wrong. The chart absolutely does show what you obtusely insist that it does not.

More innumeracy. These are not income brackets that could be skewed by the number of individuals within each bracket. They are percentages (per 100) of the income distribution. If the top line soaring away resulted from more people moving into higher incomes, you wouldn't see growth concentrated in the top one percent, because the movement of additional people into higher incomes would result in a higher percentage moving upward. But this plainly is not what we're seeing. Instead, we see the top one percent of the income distribution soaring away from everyone else.

Apparently you don't recognize it, CO., but you're making a fool of yourself. There is no problem with the chart. It uses the same sort of percentage-based units as every other chart that displays rising income inequality. Don't believe me? Google "income inequality", click "Images", and look at the charts. They're all the same, and they all show the same thing. You're posting like a stubborn idiot.

Here is a much better picture of income inequality.

Real income numbers for quintiles of the population.

Your graph about the rate of growth is useless crap. It can only be used to serve your agenda which has more to do with your blinkered politics than trying to engage in a discussion about this important topic. In 1947, the top 5% earned 17.5% of the income. In 2001 the top 5% earned 21% of the income. That shows widening inequality, but the number is much more meaningful than the "up 324%" in your graph. Also note how the upper boundaries of each quintile moves in terms of actual averaged dollars. This clearly shows that there is something going on which is holding down the lower quintile. It isn't that the upper quintiles are "seizing income". It is about the lower quintiles being left behind. I have discussed often why this is happening, a point which you ignorantly deny as you engage in your unhinged rants about conservatives and the GOP.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Because that is what it shows.

If you don't even understand what a percentage is, I don't see why you should even bother being in this conversation. This is ridiculous. If you ever figure out where you're going wrong here, you are going to be tremendously embarrassed.

See my post above

You make no sense as you have retreated into your blinkered reactionary leftism here.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

See my post above

You make no sense as you have retreated into your blinkered reactionary leftism here.

LOL. I give up. You're hilarious.

 

[MaxCoke]

Google will soon eliminate the need for truck drivers, that is where the driverless vehicle is heading. You are right about food prep, and more self checkout means fewer retail. Let alone what Amazon. And though the Randtreiver may have been a disaster for the Monroe Library in the day, it is the future of warehouse work.

All this is to suggest socialism is inevitable. If we only need 10,000 jobs per million people, there is no other choice. It was not long ago Hawking pointed out that we would need fewer jobs in the future. I have not heard anyone here mention they have a job that is not possible to be replaced by a computer/robot. We need to be thinking about this future. Some people just have the bad luck of entering this brave new world before others.

Soon? there will be no truck drivers? That is so incredibly wrong it's laughable. Maybe in our kids ... kids ... kids ... future. Do you know anything about the tech and how it works? Yeah and drones will deliver my Amazon orders. When pigs fly.