- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:32 pm to AUbused
You're telling me that the (statistically) most intelligent, most driven, highest educated, most socially connected individuals are having their income increase at a rate higher than the (statistically) least intelligent, least driven, lowest educated, least socially connected individuals?
No. fricking. Way.
No. fricking. Way.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:34 pm to AUbused
quote:
Unfortunately for you its been proven true over and over in history. Crime, violence, and often revolt stem from a people who have no hope for the future.
And they lived like the American lower class?
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:37 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
You're telling me that the (statistically) most intelligent, most driven, highest educated, most socially connected individuals are having their income increase at a rate higher than the (statistically) least intelligent, least driven, lowest educated, least socially connected individuals?
Yes, if you want to focus on that piece of what the data says. It also says that wages have fallen over 40 years for 40% of the workforce. Im sorry that data doesn't fit your model of the world and makes up upset. You seem to feel threatened by facts. The non-fiction section of the library must be a nightmare for you.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:37 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
You're telling me that the (statistically) most intelligent, most driven, highest educated, most socially connected class of individuals are having their income increase at a rate higher than the (statistically) least intelligent, least driven, lowest educated, least socially connected class of individuals?
Quibble corrected. This data doesn't track individuals, who jump between classes like crazy.
It also assumes a constant household composition, if it is to have any meaning. Which is a known bad assumption.
It also uses a measure that overestimates inflation, making both the lower and upper classes' income growth look flatter than they are. Additionally, it makes no comparison of standard of living changes over time.
Oh and one more thing, this doesn't measure the actual resources these classes get to take home. These numbers are pre-tax, pre-transfer.
This post was edited on 10/3/14 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:38 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
what they need is good jobs.
Assuming that they will all actually work (you have to admit that a good percentage WILL NOT), to create these "good jobs" will require a number of changes that libs/progs will NOT like, starting with significant reduction in government regulations.
Government regulation and trade unions killed the "Rust Belt" industries and those are the "good jobs" that people with lower levels of education used to be able to take to support themselves and their families.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:39 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
And they lived like the American lower class?
The only example that is close would be Argentina in the early 2000s. they didn't live as nice as the american poor.
But its not how they live that matters, its the comparison to their neighbors that matters. Wealth is purely a comparative point. There will always be poor people, it just means they have less.
The poor see how nice the upper middle class have it. They have no clue how the truly wealthy live, but they are quite jealous of how the upper middle class lives, hence a lot of their imitation in consumption.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:43 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
But its not how they live that matters, its the comparison to their neighbors that matters. Wealth is purely a comparative point. There will always be poor people, it just means they have less.
This. And also another thing to not would be that we don't really have any reason to suspect these trends wont continue to steepen without some sort of catalyst to do so.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:46 pm to AUbused
What is hilarious is they they explain the cause in the paper, but it turns into a R vs D mess in here.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:48 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Wealth is purely a comparative point. There will always be poor people, it just means they have less.
Wealth is measured in completely objective terms. quote:
its not how they live that matters, its the comparison to their neighbors that matters.
What is your evidence for this claim? I can give you evidence against it.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:50 pm to AUbused
quote:
Yes, if you want to focus on that piece of what the data says. It also says that wages have fallen over 40 years for 40% of the workforce. Im sorry that data doesn't fit your model of the world and makes up upset. You seem to feel threatened by facts. The non-fiction section of the library must be a nightmare for you.
Threatened by facts? You're adorable
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:53 pm to Volvagia
quote:
What is hilarious is they they explain the cause in the paper, but it turns into a R vs D mess in here.
"Among households headed by high school dropouts, incomes grew roughly in lockstep — and were basically stagnant at all levels. Among households headed by high school graduates, and in those headed by college graduates, those in the middle actually saw their wages fall. The only group that saw significant gains was households headed by high-earning college grads.
Labor economists call this "the hollowing out of the middle." Globalization and technological change have made middle-skill, middle-income jobs harder to find. Low-skill, low-paying jobs have stuck around. And there are high-paying jobs for those at the top with the skills to put technology to profitable use."
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:53 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Wealth is measured in completely objective terms.
Oh, it can be measured. But its a comparative point. Poor people don't realize how much they have, all they see is what other people have. You think poor people have been to india? or sub saharan africa? They have no fricking clue how those people live.
quote:
What is your evidence for this claim? I can give you evidence against it.
why do you think the income inequality drum has been hit so much over the last 6 years. It resonates!
I am intrigued to see yours. I very much know the american poor are richer than the majority of the world, and have all sorts of luxury items that aren't not even conceivable by the everyman in china.
But that doesn't mean they look at others and not get jealous. its human nature.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:53 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
90proofprofessional
Reminds me of a Politics of Poverty class I made the mistake of taking in undergrad. Prof used income rates to argue for why we should be giving more in public assistance (that those income levels aren't capable of supporting a family). She conveniently ignored current levels of assistance. So, by her logic, you could give someone $1,000,000 per year in support, but they would still be "poor" when looking at their level of income, so we should give more
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:54 pm to AUbused
This is a travesty. The government must fix this.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:55 pm to Joshjrn
One can only hope your analysis of her output was as thoughtful and comprehensive as your work on the OP article. 
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:58 pm to AUbused
quote:What EXACTLY do you think should happen? You think unskilled wages should increase greater than rate of inflation?
After adjusting for inflation, income was basically flat for households in the bottom half of the economic ladder.
If you do, could you please let me in on how you managed to uncouple the two?
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:59 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
why do you think the income inequality drum has been hit so much over the last 6 years. It resonates!
I am intrigued to see yours. I very much know the american poor are richer than the majority of the world, and have all sorts of luxury items that aren't not even conceivable by the everyman in china.
But that doesn't mean they look at others and not get jealous. its human nature.
Jealousy alone hasn't spurred "violence and revolt." Hunger can do it though, if it happens. The thing is, hunger is objective.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 1:00 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
So, by her logic, you could give someone $1,000,000 per year in support, but they would still be "poor" when looking at their level of income, so we should give more
Right. These types of charts don't even attempt to give us all the info we need in order to assess what kind of policy changes we need. They pretend there are none in place!
Posted on 10/3/14 at 1:03 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Jealousy alone hasn't spurred "violence and revolt." Hunger can do it though, if it happens. The thing is, hunger is objective.
Yes, bellies are full which slows it down. I think if we can get some real job growth in the next 2-4years, it won't be an issue. But if we see the continuation of what we have seen in the last 10 years or so, we are fricked.
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News