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

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
28,930
12,422
113
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 quintile earned 17.5% of the income. In 2001 the top quintile 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.
Your explanations make sense for the lowest quintile and maybe next to lowest. But I am skeptical single parents or bad education, or getting lazy from government largess is holding back quintiles 3 and 4. Fourth quintile should be upper middle class. These people should be well educated and/or well trained yet they are losing market share. When the rising tide cannot lift the small yachts there is certainly a problem.
 

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,245
6,776
113
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.
Again, this is classic CO. Hoosier. He doesn't know anything about income inequality, and he has no particular point to make about it, but others' points upset him. So he wades in with some extraneous bullshit about a graph. Of course, everything he says about the graph is preposterously wrong, but that doesn't matter because he's blown up the discussion -- which was always his intention.

CO. Hoosier utterly lacks intellectual honesty. He posts shoddy, lazy nonsense. People treat him seriously because he has a history here, but these days he's just a troll.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
28,930
12,422
113
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?
I work in IT, I have for a very long time. Think about it, planes virtually fly themselves. Including military planes in combat as the modern planes can make maneuvers that will render a human unconscious. And that is 3D, driving is 2D.

I suspect we are a few years away from cabs being switched to automated. Trucks after that. Look at how fast aircraft tech went, we went from planes only going 100 feet to the moon in 70 years. Your kids kids kids explanation would be that long, and no way. Not with Google and Ford working on it. It may take some time before states agree and pass laws to allow it.

Think about it, you can buy a car right this second that can sense you are sleeping and will wake you. You can buy a car this second that can sense an impending collision and attempt to avoid it with no input from you. You can buy a car today that will parallel park by itself. The tech is there, today. What is not there is our faith in it.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
Your explanations make sense for the lowest quintile and maybe next to lowest. But I am skeptical single parents or bad education, or getting lazy from government largess is holding back quintiles 3 and 4. Fourth quintile should be upper middle class. These people should be well educated and/or well trained yet they are losing market share. When the rising tide cannot lift the small yachts there is certainly a problem.

I mostly agree.

Income follows a number of factors and doesn't follow others. These factors change, but our politics doesn't. I posted several times over the last couple of years about a Denver Pist article about a mountain road near Aspen where many of the filthy rich had property. There were the typical big shots at Fortune 500 companies and a few recognizable celebrity names. But the single largest group were hedge fund managers. This is new. Hedge funds make enormous wealth for a few people while producing relatively little value for the average American. This is just one spinoff from the money/government axis. Trump is the only politician who has even brought up the imbalances caused be hedge fund wealth.

There is lots to do. But we can't start if we can't accurately see the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,245
6,776
113
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.
I shouldn't be feeding the troll, but it's useless to look at the top quintile (the top 20 percent) because almost all of the action is occurring in the top one percent and particularly in the top 0.1 percent, whose incomes have risen 324 percent since 1979. As for "It is about the lower quintiles being left behind," though, it is about the lower four quintiles being left behind. Which is to say that it's about the wealthiest among us soaring away from everyone else, a noncontroversial point that everyone except know-nothings like you understands. If you don't wish to be a fool, you should educate yourself.

And not that you'll grasp the significance, CO., but, once again, the chart doesn't start at zero. It starts at 100. That's because it uses an index scale from a base year (1979) to show how incomes have diverged. Also, you really need someone to teach you about percentages.
 

mike41703

All-American
Mar 28, 2005
6,292
2,285
113
I work in IT, I have for a very long time. Think about it, planes virtually fly themselves. Including military planes in combat as the modern planes can make maneuvers that will render a human unconscious. And that is 3D, driving is 2D.

I suspect we are a few years away from cabs being switched to automated. Trucks after that. Look at how fast aircraft tech went, we went from planes only going 100 feet to the moon in 70 years. Your kids kids kids explanation would be that long, and no way. Not with Google and Ford working on it. It may take some time before states agree and pass laws to allow it.

Think about it, you can buy a car right this second that can sense you are sleeping and will wake you. You can buy a car this second that can sense an impending collision and attempt to avoid it with no input from you. You can buy a car today that will parallel park by itself. The tech is there, today. What is not there is our faith in it.

I love tech and all but I'm kinda with Max here. It's too damned complicated for this to happen anytime soon. No offense lawyers, but this country is too trigger happy with litigation to allow this a fast transition.

The technology was there for electric cars but that didn't happen. The technology is there for flying cars but that's not happening anytime soon either. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it but it won't be soon.

Speaking of flying cars, does anyone else think Terrafugia's flying car is badass or what? Any pilots here? As soon as my kids leave the nest I'm all over that.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
28,930
12,422
113
The p
I love tech and all but I'm kinda with Max here. It's too damned complicated for this to happen anytime soon. No offense lawyers, but this country is too trigger happy with litigation to allow this a fast transition.

The technology was there for electric cars but that didn't happen. The technology is there for flying cars but that's not happening anytime soon either. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it but it won't be soon.

Speaking of flying cars, does anyone else think Terrafugia's flying car is badass or what? Any pilots here? As soon as my kids leave the nest I'm all over that.
Flying cars are a different beast. The problem is simple, errors would almost always equal death. A car on the road could have one emergency setting where the flashers kick on and the car auto brakes. Basically any loss of communication from the computer throws on auto flashers and brakes. There really is not an equivalent for a flying car. I guess it could throw out a parachute automatically but then I don't know their attitude.

But a 747 on autopilot is basically a flying bus with the pilot nothing more than a passenger for most of the trip.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
28,930
12,422
113
I work in IT, I have for a very long time. Think about it, planes virtually fly themselves. Including military planes in combat as the modern planes can make maneuvers that will render a human unconscious. And that is 3D, driving is 2D.

I suspect we are a few years away from cabs being switched to automated. Trucks after that. Look at how fast aircraft tech went, we went from planes only going 100 feet to the moon in 70 years. Your kids kids kids explanation would be that long, and no way. Not with Google and Ford working on it. It may take some time before states agree and pass laws to allow it.

Think about it, you can buy a car right this second that can sense you are sleeping and will wake you. You can buy a car this second that can sense an impending collision and attempt to avoid it with no input from you. You can buy a car today that will parallel park by itself. The tech is there, today. What is not there is our faith in it.
I do think one of the problems is the ability to build wealth without producing anything. Enron may have done it illegally, but a lot of people have followed that idea. Trading slips of paper does not create wealth for nearly as many people as building a car. But how can we return to investing in production and not glorified casino games?
 

mike41703

All-American
Mar 28, 2005
6,292
2,285
113
The p

Flying cars are a different beast. The problem is simple, errors would almost always equal death. A car on the road could have one emergency setting where the flashers kick on and the car auto brakes. Basically any loss of communication from the computer throws on auto flashers and brakes. There really is not an equivalent for a flying car. I guess it could throw out a parachute automatically but then I don't know their attitude.

But a 747 on autopilot is basically a flying bus with the pilot nothing more than a passenger for most of the trip.

Oh I agree with you there. I just love aircraft/flying so personally I'm really hoping things take off(yep) in that field.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,464
29,649
113
Margaritaville
I shouldn't be feeding the troll, but it's useless to look at the top quintile (the top 20 percent) because almost all of the action is occurring in the top one percent and particularly in the top 0.1 percent, whose incomes have risen 324 percent since 1979. As for "It is about the lower quintiles being left behind," though, it is about the lower four quintiles being left behind. Which is to say that it's about the wealthiest among us soaring away from everyone else, a noncontroversial point that everyone except know-nothings like you understands. If you don't wish to be a fool, you should educate yourself.

And not that you'll grasp the significance, CO., but, once again, the chart doesn't start at zero. It starts at 100. That's because it uses an index scale from a base year (1979) to show how incomes have diverged. Also, you really need someone to teach you about percentages.
And, perhaps most importantly, as I've already mentioned numerous times (and you probably have as well), the value of the growth graph is that it's the same regardless of the growth of the overall population. No matter how much the population grew between 1979 and 2006 (32%, for the record), the shape and scale of every line on that graph remains exactly the same; the only thing that is affected is the scale of the labels on the Y-axis. That's the value of the growth graph; it shows the picture of income growth disparity entirely independent of whatever other variables might cloud the picture, which is exactly the reason every smart person studying the issue looks at such numbers. But, once again, that is something that is probably lost among the types of people who think 2% can somehow magically equal 1%.
 

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,245
6,776
113
And, perhaps most importantly, as I've already mentioned numerous times (and you probably have as well), the value of the growth graph is that it's the same regardless of the growth of the overall population. No matter how much the population grew between 1979 and 2006 (32%, for the record), the shape and scale of every line on that graph remains exactly the same; the only thing that is affected is the scale of the labels on the Y-axis. That's the value of the growth graph; it shows the picture of income growth disparity entirely independent of whatever other variables might cloud the picture, which is exactly the reason every smart person studying the issue looks at such numbers. But, once again, that is something that is probably lost among the types of people who think 2% can somehow magically equal 1%.
Reading some of these posts reminds me of the quote attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli: "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong."
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,464
29,649
113
Margaritaville
Reading some of these posts reminds me of the quote attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli: "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong."
Sometimes, people use the term "nonsense" to refer to something that is just obnoxiously wrong. But sometimes, something really is nonsense, in that it can't even be addressed sensibly. That's what we're facing here. We are basically trying to convince someone that pickles aren't digital.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
And, perhaps most importantly, as I've already mentioned numerous times (and you probably have as well), the value of the growth graph is that it's the same regardless of the growth of the overall population. No matter how much the population grew between 1979 and 2006 (32%, for the record), the shape and scale of every line on that graph remains exactly the same; the only thing that is affected is the scale of the labels on the Y-axis. That's the value of the growth graph; it shows the picture of income growth disparity entirely independent of whatever other variables might cloud the picture, which is exactly the reason every smart person studying the issue looks at such numbers. But, once again, that is something that is probably lost among the types of people who think 2% can somehow magically equal 1%.

Graphing rates of change

Is of limited value. An obvious example are all the population rate of change statistics for different counties, cities or states. A lot depends on the starting numbers. Rate of change also is one of the most common ways to mislead with data. For another example, the statistics that purport to show how eating bacon is bad for you. Much better is actual number distribution. But those who wish to overstate the appearance of things use rate of change instead of actual change. I always look with skepticism on rate of change graphs. Most of the time the graph is not material to the useful information intended. This example is similar.

 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,464
29,649
113
Margaritaville
Graphing rates of change

Is of limited value. An obvious example are all the population rate of change statistics for different counties, cities or states. A lot depends on the starting numbers. Rate of change also is one of the most common ways to mislead with data. For another example, the statistics that purport to show how eating bacon is bad for you. Much better is actual number distribution. But those who wish to overstate the appearance of things use rate of change instead of actual change. I always look with skepticism on rate of change graphs. Most of the time the graph is not material to the useful information intended. This example is similar.
Nope. That's all bullshit.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
LOL. Oh my gods. You're seriously like a comedian at this point.

At least I know about how to use rate of change

I suppose if umemployment rates went from 6% to 5.4% you would say "the unemployment rate went down 10%" which would be true, but not relevant without reference to the real numbers. Same with the income statistics.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,464
29,649
113
Margaritaville
At least I know about how to use rate of change

I suppose if umemployment rates went from 6% to 5.4% you would say "the unemployment rate went down 10%" which would be true, but not relevant without reference to the real numbers. Same with the income statistics.
No, you don't. That's part of what's so funny.

This has got to be a joke. I'm sorry, but you're talking in this thread as though you don't even understand 4th grade math, much less any basic economics. You cannot be serious.

I think you're just trolling us because your political biases have become more important to you than making sense.

What you've said in this thread literally makes no sense. It's not just wrong. It's literally nonsensical. It's like you're arguing that 3 is purple. No sense whatsoever. Can't even be meaningfully responded to.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
No, you don't. That's part of what's so funny.

This has got to be a joke. I'm sorry, but you're talking in this thread as though you don't even understand 4th grade math, much less any basic economics. You cannot be serious.

I think you're just trolling us because your political biases have become more important to you than making sense.

What you've said in this thread literally makes no sense. It's not just wrong. It's literally nonsensical. It's like you're arguing that 3 is purple. No sense whatsoever. Can't even be meaningfully responded to.

All you do is post about me

I've yet to read a post from you in this thread about how and why the rate of change graph is helpful, especially since rate of change is always readily seen with the slope of the graph of the actual numbers. You do know that income inequality can continue to increase * even though a rate of change graph goes down don't you? You are just spouting crap here.

*edit
 
Last edited:

IU-Curmudgeon

All-Big Ten
Dec 11, 2011
3,218
251
83
Bloomington, Indiana
www.google.com
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.

You are the one who needs to try again, Thanks Obama... really...

On the discussion of income going on here, you want to some how wiggle him into it.

Spin it for us. You share the same verbage issues some others do here and for the same reasons, you're attorneys and being straight forward fails to serve your need to cover up facets not in align with your take. So you spew a lot of garbage to cover the fact you are just bs us all. Thus the ease and frequency with which you are shown to be wrong. I mean if I can do it with my little ol' GED and knowing the things I know due to just my being a reader/self taught... you're how smart again?
 
Last edited:

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,464
29,649
113
Margaritaville
All you do is post about me

I've yet to read a post from you in this thread about how and why the rate of change graph is helpful, especially since rate of change is always readily seen with the slope of the graph of the actual numbers. You do know that income inequality can continue to increase * even though a rate of change graph goes down don't you? You are just spouting crap here.

*edit
That can only be because you refuse to actually read anything. I tried to explain to you your simple mistake about how graphs work. Rather than learn something, you went crazy.
 

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,382
1,190
113
So, if a car provides more value because it is "better", has more safety features and presumably more consumer-preferred features, isn't the adjustment in the relative value an attempt at the standardization that you're saying doesn't exist? Products aren't necessarily static . . . even the "same" fungible good product, such as an ear of corn, can be vastly different from year to year because of new varieties that may provide advantages, such as insect or fungus resistance, but which are purchased as the "same" product by consumers . . . . Norming for those changes is needed to provide a reasonable apples-to-apples comparison.
That's a very good point. Like you said, how do you compare the price of an auto today against one in the 70s because today's autos are so much more complicated and have many more features than an auto from the 70s so you can't just look at the price. To get an accurate picture you would have to normalize some way and I'm not sure it can be done in any way that is reasonable. On the surface (with no research) I would guess that today's autos are cheaper than the ones from the 70s if you really could measured value per dollar spent.
 

Ladoga

All-Big Ten
Oct 25, 2009
4,182
1,419
113
Last edited:

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
That can only be because you refuse to actually read anything. I tried to explain to you your simple mistake about how graphs work. Rather than learn something, you went crazy.

Okay; Let's try again

First, you shouldn't presume to address the question of why a rate of change graph is useful by explaining how a rate of change graph is constructed; or how it works. I know all of that.

Second, I have not read anything from you about what you expect a rate of change graph to show about actual income inequality.

Thrid, I believe you and I can agree the rate of change of income inequality can increase while actual income inequality decreases and the rate of change can decrease while actual income inequality increases.

From a policy standpoint, I think we need to know the change in actual per capita income numbers and graph those. The rate of change can be readily seen by the slopes of the income differentials between two or more population groups. Agreed?

What purpose is then served, and what is the policy issue addressed by, a rate of change graph? As I have pointed out several times, with examples, I think rockfish's use of a rate of change graph to show the progress of income inequality is pretty useless. The response I read from him is that I deny income inequality and the response from you is that I don't know how graphs work. I think your responses are avoidance. If this is indeed to be an intelligent discussion board, you can much better.
 

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,245
6,776
113
Graphing rates of change

Is of limited value. An obvious example are all the population rate of change statistics for different counties, cities or states. A lot depends on the starting numbers. Rate of change also is one of the most common ways to mislead with data. For another example, the statistics that purport to show how eating bacon is bad for you. Much better is actual number distribution. But those who wish to overstate the appearance of things use rate of change instead of actual change. I always look with skepticism on rate of change graphs. Most of the time the graph is not material to the useful information intended. This example is similar.
You're really putting on a clinic.

It's possible to infer rates of change from the different slopes in the chart, but the chart explicitly displays amounts of change, and not rates of change. It shows that the annual income of the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution is 324 percent higher than it was in 1979. Said differently, the top 0.1 percent now earns over three times as much as it did in 1979. In contrast, the bottom 90 percent (the vast majority of us) now earn incomes that are only 16 percent higher than they were in 1979. Again, these are amounts, and not rates of change.

earnings%20growth%20mishel.png


Also, please note that the chart does not begin at zero, as you keep insisting. It begins at 100 percent, because it's measuring incomes on an index scale relative to the base year of 1979. The person who created this chart picked that year for a very good reason, as this chart illustrates:

imrs.php

This shows the share of national income going to those in the top 10 percent of the income distribution. In the three decades after WWII, this measure was remarkably stable. Rich people earned a lot more than poor people, but as national income grew the relative distribution of income stayed the same. The rising tide really did lift all boats.

Right around 1980, that began to change. By 2012, the top 10 percent's share of national income had risen from about a third to over half. This reflects a massive upward redistribution of income. Over the last three or four decades, increases in our national income have flowed almost entirely to the top of the distribution, leaving everyone else with little to show for our increased national prosperity. As my initial chart illustrated, the rising tide now lifts only the yachts.

That is the real story of income inequality in this country. It can't be explained by social dysfunction among poor people or inadequate education or any of your other pet theories. But you'll make no progress on any of this so long as you can't even sort out how to read a simple chart.
 

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,245
6,776
113
From a policy standpoint, I think we need to know the change in actual per capita income numbers and graph those.
More innumeracy. A "per capita" chart wouldn't display any differently than the percentage ("per 100") charts that everyone uses to illustrate income inequality. Again, the chart I linked doesn't display rates of change, although those could be inferred from the slopes at various points. It displays amounts of change at different points in the income distribution. That's the way all such charts work.
 

Ladoga

All-Big Ten
Oct 25, 2009
4,182
1,419
113
Where are you getting your stats? Not saying you are wrong, but what specific data sources are you looking at.

There is a vast amount of date to confirm the information I posted. Here are some links including all those things and comparing to other states. If you have questions, I'm still trying to figure out how to take part of a slide presentation and post just those slides pertinent to the current discussion.

http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports...ing-Data/2014-State-Manufacturing-Data-Table/


http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports...ata/Manufacturing-Employment-by-State---2014/


http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports...turing-s-Share-of-Gross-State-Product---2014/


http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports...ufacturing-Data/Manufacturing-Facts--Indiana/ NOTE – this is total manufacturing output . Indiana is 5th but those in 1st through 4th with greater output are much larger states. We’ve passed Michigan in total manufacturing output a few years ago. As a percentage of state GDP we’re 1st.


http://www.nam.org/Data-And-Reports/State-Manufacturing-Data/ This includes all states and the nation FYI
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
You're really putting on a clinic.

It's possible to infer rates of change from the different slopes in the chart, but the chart explicitly displays amounts of change, and not rates of change. It shows that the annual income of the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution is 324 percent higher than it was in 1979. Said differently, the top 0.1 percent now earns over three times as much as it did in 1979. In contrast, the bottom 90 percent (the vast majority of us) now earn incomes that are only 16 percent higher than they were in 1979. Again, these are amounts, and not rates of change.

earnings%20growth%20mishel.png


Also, please note that the chart does not begin at zero, as you keep insisting. It begins at 100 percent, because it's measuring incomes on an index scale relative to the base year of 1979. The person who created this chart picked that year for a very good reason, as this chart illustrates:

imrs.php

This shows the share of national income going to those in the top 10 percent of the income distribution. In the three decades after WWII, this measure was remarkably stable. Rich people earned a lot more than poor people, but as national income grew the relative distribution of income stayed the same. The rising tide really did lift all boats.

Right around 1980, that began to change. By 2012, the top 10 percent's share of national income had risen from about a third to over half. This reflects a massive upward redistribution of income. Over the last three or four decades, increases in our national income have flowed almost entirely to the top of the distribution, leaving everyone else with little to show for our increased national prosperity. As my initial chart illustrated, the rising tide now lifts only the yachts.

That is the real story of income inequality in this country. It can't be explained by social dysfunction among poor people or inadequate education or any of your other pet theories. But you'll make no progress on any of this so long as you can't even sort out how to read a simple chart.

A couple of things

I don't "keep insisting" that the chart starts at zero, I said it once. It does start with zero. In this post you said: "the income of the upper .1% "is 324 percent higher than it was in 1979." You also started from zero, otherwise you would have said 424 percent as the vertical axis denotes. But this is a minor point.

The reason I focus on the plight of the lower income earners is more complicated but my reasons are sound.

In no particular order:

First, I think our public policy over the last 50 or 60 years created the problems in the lower income groups, or at least exacerbated existing problems with how education is delivered, immigration policy, and a safety net that isn't much different from keeping millions of people in custodial care instead of encouraging them to make their way. We have a moral obligation to fix all of this.

Second, we CAN help the lower income classes have more upward mobility with things like better education and the other things to help the economies in the inner cities that I have talked about over the years.

Third, I don't think we fix income inequality by telling rich people to not get good educations, or not to be creative, or to not take risks, or to not study hard and difficult academic disciplines. We fix income inequality by encouraging the lower social-economic groups to do these things.

Fourth, I don't see inequality as a social burden in and of itself. The burden is focused in the lower groups who generally have no education, no jobs, no hope, and no life.

Fifth, I don't think we fix inequality by raising taxes on the rich. While I do think we need to eliminate the carried interest tax benefit, that isn't to solve inequality, that, I guess, is to further my sense of fairness.

Sixth, being well educated, rich and wealthy is not a bad thing that we need a public policy to address. Being poorly educated and poor economically is a bad thing.

Seventh, the problem with inequality is more about the lack of upward mobility. The populations residing within the various income numbers are not static. We need to focus on helping mobility, which of course, would cause us to focus our efforts in the lower income groups.

There are more reasons but I think you get the picture.

In sum, I think you see the rich as a problem. I don't. I see the poor as a problem, and not only their problem, but a problem for all of us to address.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
More innumeracy. A "per capita" chart wouldn't display any differently than the percentage ("per 100") charts that everyone uses to illustrate income inequality. Again, the chart I linked doesn't display rates of change, although those could be inferred from the slopes at various points. It displays amounts of change at different points in the income distribution. That's the way all such charts work.

Once again

What is the purpose of graphing growth in terms of percentage change? All you are graphing is momentum, no? I think the actual number is better. If I wanted to graph how much my grandson grows from year to year to year, I'd graph his height in inches year by year, why would I graph the percentage change year by year? What does that say?

Getting back to your graph. In year 2000 the rate of growth was about 400%. A few years later it was 300%. In reading your posts, you seem to be suggesting that the actual wages didn't grow at all and indeed fell during that time. Your graph, at face value, says the growth was still 300% (or maybe 200% based upon the final number of 324). The graph is titled "Growth in Annual earnings" which to me means how much wages grow annually each and every year. I think what you are saying isn't annual year by year growth but "accumulated" growth from the base year. The graph should be titled "27 year" growth instead of "annual" growth. Bottom line this is a messed up graph. Graphing actual per capita income data would have been better.
 
Last edited:

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,464
29,649
113
Margaritaville
Once again

What is the purpose of graphing growth in terms of percentage change? All you are graphing is momentum, no? I think the actual number is better. If I wanted to graph how much my grandson grows from year to year to year, I'd graph his height in inches year by year, why would I graph the percentage change year by year? What does that say?

Getting back to your graph. In year 2000 the rate of growth was about 400%. A few years later it was 300%. In reading your posts, you seem to be suggesting that the actual wages didn't grow at all and indeed fell during that time. Your graph, at face value, says the growth was still 300% (or maybe 200% based upon the final number of 324). The graph is titled "Growth in Annual earnings" which to me means how much wages grow annually each and every year. I think what you are saying isn't annual year by year growth but "accumulated" growth from the base year. The graph should be titled "27 year" growth instead of "annual" growth. Bottom line this is a messed up graph. Graphing actual per capita income data would have been better.
This question actually has a simple answer. In two parts:

1. Because most of the lower groups would appear completely flat on the graph. In order to fit the income growth of the top .1% on the graph, the scale of the Y-axis would be such as to be unable to graph the relatively smaller changes in the other groups.
2. Even if you got around #1 by using an absurdly large graph, or trading it for a table, you'd still need another step to make sense of it. Seeing that one group gained, for example, $100,000 more in income while another group gained $1,000 tells you very little if you don't know where they started ($1,000 would mean a lot more to someone making $18K/year than $100,000 would to someone making $150M). Hence, the percentage growth. It allows you to accurately compare two (or more) lines that, in raw numbers, would exist at vastly different scales.

This is why everyone who studies this looks at the graphs Rock shared. Your "better" alternative would clearly not be.
 

Ladoga

All-Big Ten
Oct 25, 2009
4,182
1,419
113
This question actually has a simple answer. In two parts:

1. Because most of the lower groups would appear completely flat on the graph. In order to fit the income growth of the top .1% on the graph, the scale of the Y-axis would be such as to be unable to graph the relatively smaller changes in the other groups.
2. Even if you got around #1 by using an absurdly large graph, or trading it for a table, you'd still need another step to make sense of it. Seeing that one group gained, for example, $100,000 more in income while another group gained $1,000 tells you very little if you don't know where they started ($1,000 would mean a lot more to someone making $18K/year than $100,000 would to someone making $150M). Hence, the percentage growth. It allows you to accurately compare two (or more) lines that, in raw numbers, would exist at vastly different scales.

This is why everyone who studies this looks at the graphs Rock shared. Your "better" alternative would clearly not be.

OK, we've had the graph war and there is a plethora of information but to what end?.Unless we are academics specializing in the field, what do we DO with this information?

For those complaining about income maldistribution as a national issue and the rate of growth or non-growth, what legislative policy would you enact assuming your goal is to use policy of the federal government to correct the perceived problem?
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
everyone who studies this looks at the graphs Rock shared.

Of course, this says exactly nothing

As I pointed out elswhere, Rock's graph is messed up. Apparently the 100% base point means exactly nothing given the 324% ending number. There are other issues as I pointed out. You haven't convinced me why graphing actual per capita incomes for each group isn't a good graph and more useful.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,464
29,649
113
Margaritaville
OK, we've had the graph war and there is a plethora of information but to what end?.Unless we are academics specializing in the field, what do we DO with this information?

For those complaining about income maldistribution as a national issue and the rate of growth or non-growth, what legislative policy would you enact assuming your goal is to use policy of the federal government to correct the perceived problem?
Good question. Not being an economist, I can't say for sure what would work the best, but I would start with three things:

1. Dramatically increase capital gains taxes. The very top income brackets get a much higher percentage of their income from capital gains. This is why the effective income tax rate levels off and even begins to drop as you get inside the top 1%. A large standard deduction would help keep this change especially progressive while protecting retirement income of working class folks.

2. Divorce health care from employment. Obviously, I'd prefer a single payer plan, but however it's done, health care shouldn't be a benefit of employment. Making this change would make it much more affordable for businesses to expand, creating jobs and better salary opportunities for employees.

3. Negative income tax. Every American would get a flat amount as a fully refundable credit. Unlike the EITC, it would not be tied to earned income in any way.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,464
29,649
113
Margaritaville
Of course, this says exactly nothing

As I pointed out elswhere, Rock's graph is messed up. Apparently the 100% base point means exactly nothing given the 324% ending number. There are other issues as I pointed out. You haven't convinced me why graphing actual per capita incomes for each group isn't a good graph and more useful.
For gods' sake, I just did that in the post you just responded to. You ignored it. As usual.

You want me to stop posting about you? Stop being you!
 

mjvcaj

Hall of Famer
Jun 25, 2005
50,064
1,466
113
There is a vast amount of date to confirm the information I posted. Here are some links including all those things and comparing to other states. If you have questions, I'm still trying to figure out how to take part of a slide presentation and post just those slides pertinent to the current discussion.

http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports...ing-Data/2014-State-Manufacturing-Data-Table/


http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports...ata/Manufacturing-Employment-by-State---2014/


http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports...turing-s-Share-of-Gross-State-Product---2014/


http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports...ufacturing-Data/Manufacturing-Facts--Indiana/ NOTE – this is total manufacturing output . Indiana is 5th but those in 1st through 4th with greater output are much larger states. We’ve passed Michigan in total manufacturing output a few years ago. As a percentage of state GDP we’re 1st.


http://www.nam.org/Data-And-Reports/State-Manufacturing-Data/ This includes all states and the nation FYI

Thanks. I hadn't realized almost a third of state GDP was manufacturing-related. I agree that IN should embrace this as other states move away from it. However, the risk is that if manufacturing as a % of GDP continues to decline, IN is fighting to acquire market share in a declining market.
 

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,245
6,776
113
For gods' sake, I just did that in the post you just responded to. You ignored it. As usual.

You want me to stop posting about you? Stop being you!
CO. Hoosier is innumerate, but in a classic illustration of the Dunning-Kruger problem, he doesn't recognize that he is innumerate, so he is incapable of having obvious errors explained to him. Instead, he believes that everyone who charts income inequality is doing it wrong, and somehow only he is able to see the right way to do it.
 

iuwclurker1

All-Big Ten
Dec 19, 2015
4,684
1,014
113
Once again

What is the purpose of graphing growth in terms of percentage change? All you are graphing is momentum, no? I think the actual number is better. If I wanted to graph how much my grandson grows from year to year to year, I'd graph his height in inches year by year, why would I graph the percentage change year by year? What does that say?

Getting back to your graph. In year 2000 the rate of growth was about 400%. A few years later it was 300%. In reading your posts, you seem to be suggesting that the actual wages didn't grow at all and indeed fell during that time. Your graph, at face value, says the growth was still 300% (or maybe 200% based upon the final number of 324). The graph is titled "Growth in Annual earnings" which to me means how much wages grow annually each and every year. I think what you are saying isn't annual year by year growth but "accumulated" growth from the base year. The graph should be titled "27 year" growth instead of "annual" growth. Bottom line this is a messed up graph. Graphing actual per capita income data would have been better.
The %s in Rock's graph above are not rates of growth

but rather, as Rock stated, amounts of growth. That's why the graph is not entitled Rates of Growth...but just Growth... The labeling on the Y-axis is a bit confusing, but not incorrect. 100% on the Y-axis represents 100% of the starting amount. Joe's annual income in 1979 was 100% of $20,000. He earned what he earned -- $20,000. The graph shows that 27 years later his annual income had grown by 16%. That means in 2006 his annual income was $20,000 + ($20,000 * 16%) = $23,200, because he was in the lowest income group.

What the graph shows is that if he had been in the highest income group, his annual income would have grown from $20,000 per year to $20,000 + ($20,000 * 324%) = $84,800 per year.

Note that he'd be earning over four times as much, according to the graph, not over three times as much. That's apparently where your confusion comes in about the 400% mark on the Y-axis. The graph works. You just need to understand it properly.
 
Last edited:

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
For gods' sake, I just did that in the post you just responded to. You ignored it. As usual.

You want me to stop posting about you? Stop being you!

No you didn't

Reread your answer. I didn't igonre it. I didn't respond to it because you continue to be off on a tangent. You were talking about changes and why 1,000 in change means different things to different people depending on the starting income You never get to this point if you would graph per capita income over a period of time. Per capita income is the epicenter on income inequality, not changes in income.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,620
7,441
113
The %s in Rock's graph above are not rates of growth

but rather, as Rock stated, amounts of growth. That's why the graph is not entitled Rates of Growth...but just Growth... The labeling on the Y-axis is a bit confusing, but not incorrect. 100% on the Y-axis represents 100% of the starting amount. Joe's annual income in 1979 was 100% of $20,000. He earned what he earned -- $20,000. The graph shows that 27 years later his annual income had grown by 16%. That means in 2006 his annual income was $20,000 + ($20,000 * 16%) = $23,200, because he was in the lowest income group.

What the graph shows is that if he had been in the highest income group, his annual income would have grown from $20,000 per year to $20,000 + ($20,000 * 324%) = $84,800 per year.

Note that he'd be earning over four times as much, according to the graph, not over three times as much. That's apparently where your confusion comes in about the 400% mark on the Y-axis. The graph works. You just need to understand it properly.

I understand all of this.

But the title of the graph is "annual" change. We now know that where the graph shows annual 324% for the final year, it doesn't mean 324% for the final year. It means 324% total over a 27year span. I get that. The graph is still messed up.
 

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
28,937
10,262
113
The %s in Rock's graph above are not rates of growth

but rather, as Rock stated, amounts of growth. That's why the graph is not entitled Rates of Growth...but just Growth... The labeling on the Y-axis is a bit confusing, but not incorrect. 100% on the Y-axis represents 100% of the starting amount. Joe's annual income in 1979 was 100% of $20,000. He earned what he earned -- $20,000. The graph shows that 27 years later his annual income had grown by 16%. That means in 2006 his annual income was $20,000 + ($20,000 * 16%) = $23,200, because he was in the lowest income group.

What the graph shows is that if he had been in the highest income group, his annual income would have grown from $20,000 per year to $20,000 + ($20,000 * 324%) = $84,800 per year.

Note that he'd be earning over four times as much, according to the graph, not over three times as much. That's apparently where your confusion comes in about the 400% mark on the Y-axis. The graph works. You just need to understand it properly.
One thing that should be remembered is that although upward mobility isn't quite as likely as it was 40 years ago, it's still likely that a person born in a certain quintile (except for the top, of course, and some percentage of those will end up in lower quintiles) will likely move up one or two more during his earning lifetime. So Joe, who started out at $20,000 per year, has likely gone up a line or two on the graph and is making something around that amount. I think many, if not most, of us here can attest to that being their own situation. I certainly can. Goat and I had a good discussion on this a while back.