re: If we talk in pure economic terms

Jesus christ, dude.

Over a 6 year period, do you really think it is realistic to expect someone to go from the poorest to the richest decile?

It's called incremental progress.

You don't think it's significant that 40%+ of the poorest households moved up within 6 years?

See, this is why you annoy me.

You accuse conservatives on this board of not ever citing numbers/data. I provide fed reserve data that shows there is ample movement between deciles over a short time (6 years is not a long time), and you mock the data.

You really think the accurate way to measure icnome mobility is to see how many people who are earning 12k dollars in 2001 are earning 200k in 2007?

GTFO

quote:

---

2% from lowest to highest. 5% from highest to lowest.

Yeah, lots of great upward mobility there.

---

Yet in the other thread you said someone in the top 13% was wealthy....

quote:

---

One step forward, 2.5 back? Great 'progress'

---

What??? You are measuring 2 different cohorts.

Here are the facts, plainly and simply laid out by the fed reserve:

1) Almost 40% of the poorest households were in a larger decile after only 6 years, a very short time ecnomically speaking.

2) Among the second decile, 36% were in a higher decile within 6 years.

3) Among the middle class, 32% had moved to a higher decile within 6 years.

4) Among "the rich", which includes the 4th and 5th deciles, many went BACKWARDS, which indicates that wealth is not "hoarded"

Fed reserve spells it out

quote:

---

In the discussions on income inequality and wage stagnation, we frequently hear about the “top 1%” or the “top 10%” or the “bottom 99%” and the public has started to believe that those groups operate like closed private clubs that contain the exact same people or households every year. But the empirical evidence displayed above tells a much different story of dynamic change in the labor market—people and households move up and down the earnings quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s low-income households will rise to become tomorrow’s high-income households, and some will even eventually be in the “top 10% or “top 1%.” And many of today’s “top 1%” or top income quintile members are tomorrow’s middle or lower class households, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the dynamic U.S labor market – an important point in any discussion about “exploding income inequality.”

---

You think it matters that 5% of the top 1% became the poorest decile over 6 years? It's called retirement.

quote:

---

Downward is the more likely way.

---

Huh?

Forbes, via data from the brookings institute and cohort data from RAND institute (nothing to do with the russian objectivist witch)

quote:

---

Family of 4 - 30k a year

Family of 4 - 70k a year

Family of 4 - 150k a year

Family of 4 - >300k a year

---

Neither, R, R, D

Specific industry matters more than income level.

Democrats suck for the family at $30k because of their insistence on marriage penalties and welfare cliffs.

BamaAtl believes that because more people went from the top decile to the poorest decile than from the poorest decile to the richest decile, it is sufficient evidence that there was MORE economic decline than mobility across ALL groups.

What logic!

Based on current system and programs or on pure idealogy I.e socialism vs free market capitalism?

Right now we have a mix of both which makes middle and upper middle class more beneficial to be republican. Democrat is more beneficial to the poor and rich elite but for way different reasons. And by rich elite I don't mean successful business owner worth 50 million. I'm talking the Soros/Gates/zuckerberg types.