Inflation adjusted.
But, because the top 1% grew by 275% this is bad news?
1) Do people stay in the same income strata their entire life?
2) Would it be better if middle incomes grew by 20% and upper incomes grew by 20%?
3) Is it a zero sum game? If the top 1% earn 275% more, does that mean there is less for the rest of us? Hows so?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/news/economy/cbo_income/index.htm?iid=Lead&hpt=hp_t2
365Stairs
Member Profile
What did Middle Class expenses grow by in the same period? My educated guessimate..."ONLY"...42%....or more...depending on your geography...
Middle class expenses.. well, outside of the essentials, food, clothing, shelter, expenses are controllable. Middle class Americans also piled on more debt and debt expense than any generation or decade in our history. Now the expenses that are not controllable are the ones imposed on us by our fellow citizens... taxes. Now there is the telling story... You don't know who is screwing you... too busy trying to pick the pockets of others to notice the thief coming through your window!
USA Today
"Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade."
"Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
And JanS says we have a revenue problem... we have a public union problem and a Democratic Party that is crack addicted to union vote pandering. How serious does it have to get before ya say enough is enough. 123K AVERAGE... just stunning. Sure don't share the pain do they? Of course they won't shrink government they are decoupled from the free enterprise economy. It's their gravy train and you are paying the fare.
And the sad part? The middle class gets hit the hardest, because very single fee, tax, confiscation gets passed along in costs of goods sold or manufactured. Your utiltiy bills, your property taxes, traffic tickets, building permits, it's the same at the local level.. worse in many cases. I think, they think, we are stupid, because we are.
365Stairs
Member Profile
"Middle class expenses.. well, outside of the essentials, food, clothing, shelter, expenses are controllable."
Not an untrue statement kman...however, I was relating my estimate to the cost of those essentials (including benefits) rising in the same period - at a higher ratio than income - adjusted for inflation.
I wasn't even going to touch the tax equation..knowing someone else would...you don't disappoint...
Taxes are 1/3 of the cost of living...how can you NOT address them and then have a rational discussion on cost of living? There is the substitutive effects on cost of living. I can switch my selection of grains or vegetables to lower cost ones if there is an economic incentive to do so. VW's too expensive.. switch to Lexus, Hyundai, etc.. but taxes... nooo you can't make discreet decisions and choices.. they "gotcha".. much of the cost of those consumer goods and services are directly tied to the rates they are taxed. It's a fundamental of costs.
Kootch..
Ignoring what you don't want to see doesn't make it go away.
Tell me how we can miraculously control out of pocket medical costs with insurance companies raising rates and covering less.
A trend btw that predated obamacare by a good decade.
How do you explain the stagnation of middle class wages since the 70s?
The only thing that has to do with their spending habits is that it has severely limited them.
+40% (inflation adjusted) is not "stagnation"........unless I am reading it wrong (which cold be the case!).
Smitty,
The fact that they used inflation adjusted incomes for the top 1%andtop 20% would lead you to believe that's what they used for the middle class but they don't say so and if you follow the middle class link in that story the backstorey says inflation adjusted incomes for the middle class actually regressed.
Btw..I would like to see the top 20%broken down to top 20% and 10-20%.
As a member of that category I can tell you that the top 10%'s incomes are really driving that increase.
I would expect the top 10-20% to barely break even since we also carry the top tax burden.
Sorry about smart phone fat finger typing
'"Over the past three decades, the distribution of income in the United States has become increasingly dispersed -- in particular, the share of income accruing to high-income households has increased, whereas the share accruing to other households has declined," the CBO said.
'For middle-class earners, it was a different story. Household income grew by just under 40% and the poorest fifth of the population saw their incomes rise by just 18% in a little less than 30 years, according to the study, which was based on IRS and Census data.
...
'"The rapid growth in average real household income for the 1% of the population with the highest income was a major factor contributing to the growing inequality in the distribution of household income between 1979 and 2007," the report said. "Shifts in government transfers and federal taxes also contributed to that increase in inequality."'
Again, the middle class (most of us) grew by an (inflation adjusted) 40%. But, because the top 1% grew faster this now sucks? Why?
It is not, and has never been a zero sum game. There is not on "income pizza" that gets split up. If it is, someone needs to prove it to me.
So, we would "feel" better if the top 1% grew by 20% and the middle class grew by 20% but we would be worse off! I don't understand that line of thinking.
Would you rather:
A) Get a 40% raise while your neighbor gets a 300% raise.
B) Get a 20% raise while your neighbor gets a 20% raise.
If your answer is B I think you are nuts!
Smitty
Again .. follow.your own limks and. take a look at adjusted income
You might also take a look at the last line of metrognome's post.
If your raises don't keep up with increased costs and increased taxes do you still feel like you can afford that vacation you fantasied about when you got that raise?
365Stairs
Member Profile
You cannot expect to post a stat of any kind that shows increase anything over any time frame and not account for the counter-balance NET...
The NET of that 40% is what you see on the streets today...yelling and screaming...
The numbers are already "inflation adjusted" salaries. That means over and above cost of living, right? You can't double count cost of living just because you want to.
What have housing and grocery costs alone done over the past 30 years? I can't believe that salaries, on average, have kept up with these costs. That $40K house in 1981, when you were making $30K, is now $375K and that job is now earning, what, $70K? Food and housing is a major percentage of people's expenditures/cost of living.
The main stream workers are being squeezed because they can be. Nobody wants to pay any more than they HAVE to and with the economy becoming more global there are much cheaper alternatives to American workers. We're seeing the result and it's not going away. This is just equalization of standard of living as other nations catch up.
365Stairs
Member Profile
Well..let's see if this internet calculator thingy worked...
"Total inflation from January 1971 to January 2011 is 453.32%"
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Cumulative_Inflation_Calculator.aspx
My math is fuzzy...help me out...is that a bigger # than the OP?
I forgot to mention that I do feel the ever increasing disparity between the highest wage earners and what is considered middle class is not a positive thing. People with little disposable income don't make for a real strong consumer base. Nor do they educate their children as well nor provide America with future citizens and workers as well prepared to compete as they should be. Nor do they generate the revenues needed to maintain America's infrastructure etc.
But the top earners are top earners mostly for real reasons, not by chance. Mainly, they're driven people, probably more ambition, maybe have more means to begin with, but also many are just sharks. And sharks don't share their lunch with anyone.
So do you limit salaries in private industry? I don't think that's a good idea. That's where tax rates come in. But I also don't think you automatically tax someone at a higher rate simply because of a larger income. Maybe tax someone's salary based on a starting point combined with a formula based on what percentage an individual's compensation is of the entire organization's compensation.
Or based on how many times higher it is than average compensation in the organization. If you take an extremely disproportionate cut of the whole then you pay higher taxes.
So if you're the CEO would you prefer 1/2 of your salary going to taxes or would you prefer taking home the same amount, because of a lower salary (with lower tax rate), while leaving more dollars in the org's account for payroll, rainy day fund, capital, etc.? Just random, uncooked thoughts.
the problems with these kinds of reports is that they are compiled by bean counters, which is fine, except that they do not usually provide any social context for the numbers.
To be of any real value, this report should also look at how corporate America has changed during the reporting period. Corporate America is no longer about providing good products and services at a reasonable rate while making a respectable profit, reinvesting in itself and the community that funds the roads, schools, etc. that it depends on, being a good steward of resources, incl. the air we breathe and the water we drink and play in ... and maybe it never was.
The last 60 years has seen corporations grow into national and then multi-national entities, eventually becoming enmeshed in a testosterone-fueled p!ssing contest among the elite CEOs, corporate raiders, etc., to see who amass the most wealth by buying and dismantling smaller companies and then divesting the pieces, ruining the lives of the employees and their communities in the process and ultimately driving up the costs of doing business so much that entire American industries ended up in China and other cheap labor companies (and, no, I don't let organized labor off the hook for participating in this.) How many corporate CEO's have ruined companies and then left with multi-million$$ golden parachutes while 30 year employees lost their pensions.
Something to be proud of, esp. when they go to church on Sundays, if they have time, and vote for the most pious, religious politician they can buy, I mean, find.
The other side of the coin is the American consumer, but that's for another post.
Last time.
When the article states "inflation adjusted" it is ALREADY taking inflation into account.
365Stairs
Member Profile
Last time (from me)...I would love to see their inflationary figures..."it just don't add up Sam"...
Carry the 3...
Smitty:
What exactly are you trying to prove? That they have no reason to demonstrate? They clearly feel they do. The stats you cite are time-biased--income in the last 30 years? I suspect that if you made the time frame the last 20 years or the last 15 years it would be even more biased. And yes, it may not be a zero-sum game but the bucks come from somewhere--the outlandish CEO compensation (please, don't even try to defend that) comes from the stockholders. Companies used to offer dividends and now it is news that at least some companies are doing that again. Sure dividends benefit the 1% but not nearly as much as the retiree relying on that income.
Insert longer rant here. Restore the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and do tweaks to SSI. Both sides should give but I see no give from one side but only take--like the seagulls in Finding Nemo yelling "Mine...mine...mine."
but smitty
the figures don't say inflation adjusted wages when referring to the middle class as i already pointed out. read carefully and follow the links in the article you posted.
you will understand why if you do even the most rudimentary research on inflation adjusted wage comparisons.
redblack
Member Profile
well, gee. i followed the second link in smitty's link and came up with a few nuggets that he's blatantly ignoring.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/middle_class_income/index.htm?iid=EL
since 2000, middle class incomes have fallen 7%, with a brief spike during the housing bubble. 46.2 million americans now live in poverty. and 49 million are still living without health insurance.
then there's this, from the same article:
At the same time that Americans had less cash to spend, they were also being hit with rising prices for some crucial items. Even accounting for inflation, it still costs more to buy a home, fill your gas tank, go to the doctor and put food on the table than it did only 10 years ago.
anyway, smitty, if you're trying to say that the middle class has seen a steady 40% increase in wages since 1980, you would be wrong.
thanks redlback..
couldn't do that on my smartphone
you have no idea what a luxury a full keyboard is till you live without one for a week...
to compensate I had only a fire and incredible weather and an ocean at my door and the pelicans flying south and crab for breakfast and ....
what on earth am i doing home?
According to the CPI calculator I used, today's dollar is worth less than 30% of what it was in 1978, my first year in the tax-paying work-force, so even IF we in the lower income levels are making 40% more than we were 30+ years ago, we are falling way behind.
When WILL the trickle-down begin? How much of our Nation's collective wealth DO we need to give to the top 400 families before, through their benevolence, they start trickling on us?
---
Tell you what Smitty, send me your paychecks and I'll supply-side some of my new-found wealth down upon you.
It's not a zero sum game. There is no income pie that gets divided. Your neighbor gets a bigger raise than you, SO WHAT, you got a raise! Selfish people who rail against selfishness make me laugh.
Smitty, I'm more concerned about the viability of my Nation and her people. I'll get by; I know how to survive in the wilderness under harsh conditions. I just don't want to see our Nation, one which created the conditions for the very wealthy to get very wealthy, to continue to fall into the 2nd (3rd?) world. The reason we went along with Republican championed supply-side economics for so long was the promise of a rising tide. Many people warned that it was a ruse to siphon our Nation's collective wealth into the pockets of a rich and powerful few, but with the promise of tax breaks, which in reality went only to those at the very top, enough of the majority went along with it, many believing the the lie that they too, would/could one day be standing on top of the heap.
In the end, we sell off our commons, fight endless wars against invisible enemies, stop providing for one another, stop building our Nation, and the broad base fights amongst themselves over the remainders, angry at the pennies their neighbors cost them while ignoring the much larger costs being visited upon them by their overlords.
Do you really want an American society that looks like the one they have in Mexico? A tiny oligarchy, a tiny middle-class to provide support to the oligarchy, and a vast and rude underclass, doing whatever they can to survive? I don't, I would hope you value your fellow Americans enough that you also don't want that, but we have thirty+ years of proof supply-side doesn't work (as advertised), it is what a continuation of Republican economic policies will deliver, and they have given no indication that they are changing those philosophies.
Smitty...
i don't mind if the rich get richer
what i mind is subsidizing their taxes so they can suck the wealth out of my retirement income...
Dawsonct, it sounds like you'd prefer a flat tax, and close all loopholes. It cuts out the need for lobbyists. Those who make more pay more. Everybody pays something, even the 47% of Americans who pay zero federal income tax might end up paying a few dollars and realize that the problem is government waste.
Wait, that was wayyy too complicated! Let's get back to JoB's class warfare rant and blame our fiscal problems on "millionaires and billionaires" because they are eeeeevil!
well, boys and girls, looks like we gots ourselves a new conservative player. Same Faux Noise claptrap, tho, so I guess the tennis game remains the same.
Good, we should have some good volley's.
Hmmm, Supply Side worked, no matter how the current Prez tries to spin it.
redblack
Member Profile
rich: did it now? why? because terrence jeffreys said so?
i like how every assertion in his "article" is based on the little housing bubble spike in middle-class incomes in 2007, while the CBO report runs to 2010.
the fact is that the middle class is earning exactly what it did in 1996 in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars. meanwhile, in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars, goods are more expensive.
and the income number is trending downward.
now, let's see... who was in office in 2007, when the economy crashed for most americans?
and it's hard to take this guy seriously after reading this:
...Americans saw their’s massively increase, ...
anyway, i'll make this reeeeal simple. taking the CNN link/CBO graph's starting number in 1980, the average middle class income was $45,000.
by the time reagan left office, they had risen to $49,000, but were beginning a downward trend.
by 2000, after the tech bubble, the number was $53,000.
today, the number is $49,445.
from 1980 to 2000, middle class income rose from $45,000 to $53,000. that's an increase of 20%.
since 2000, middle class income has fallen from $53,000 to $49,445.
that is a decline of almost 10%.
since 1980, middle class incomes have risen from $45,000 to $49,445, in real, inflation-adjusted dollars.
that is an increase of less than 10%.
from my link in my above post, CNN says:
While the earnings of middle-income Americans have barely budged since the mid 1970s, the new data showed that from 2000 to 2010, they actually regressed.
CNN is right. terrence jeffreys is wrong.
if you run CBO's graph back to 1970, you'll see that wages had declined until 1980. in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, middle class income has been flat since about 1970, with peaks and valleys along the way.
trickle-down didn't work.
JV...
framing what i said as a class warfare rant might make you feel better about the hand dipping into your retirement income...
but it doesn't change the facts.
One of our retirement income funds lost about 30 grand this year. That 30 grand didn't disappear. It became profit for someone else.
That is a transfer of funds...
or someone else's hand in our retirement funds.
you could say that they play the same market our retirement funds do...
but that's not true.
They play the market with funds they control themselves.
We play the market with funds that are controlled by someone else...
We never have the opportunity to take advantage of sudden changes in the market driven by the players who create those sudden whims in the market.. but our slow moving retirement funds sure take a hit every time they profit.
and if that wasn't enough..
the agent controlling our captive funds makes the majority of their living servicing the guys who are making money playing the market.
then there is that pesky little stagnant income thing unless you happen to be one of the top 5%.
oh.. and the poor do pay taxes...
they pay their own
and then they pay those passed along to them by their landlords...
wanting to squeeze the working poor who can't feed their families without relying on food stamps and local food banks in the name of justice isn't class warfare?
try living it
and i think you would quickly reevaluate your terms.
speaking up about injustice only became class warfare
when the right wing pundits pulled the "poor me" card.
poor them
i'd cry me a river
but i am too busy helping the casualties of the economy they created and profit from.
No, I'm far from the top 5%, but I don't demonize them either. Good for them. Many of them made smart choices, took risks, and are providing goods or services that benefit the rest of us.
As for Wall Street, I have no ties to them either. They do nothing but move money around, and keep some for themselves with each transaction. Just like the government. Or ambulance chasing lawyers. They are all the same to me; they provide absolutely nothing and get rich off while providing absolutely nothing in return.
JoB, let's not confuse the people who are truly poor, and those with poor values. The truly poor need help and we should continue to do everything possible to help them get back on their feet
But there is a huge problem of people with poor values. You should stop by the "poor" neighborhoods and count how many satellite receivers you see, all of which are connected to flat screen TVs.
Or go to the E.R. and see how many people are abusing the healthcare system, while talking on their cell phones. So they can pay hundreds a month for a cell phone and premium TV, but can't pay $25 a month for health insurance? Those are examples of poor values. And throwing more money at the problem won't fix it.
pray tell..where can you get health insurance for 25 bucks a month?
JV, do you know the definition of the word 'apocryphal'?
$25/month for medical insurance!? Really? Example please.
BTW, MOST people in the top 1% "EARNED" their money the old-fashioned way, they inherited it.
JV..
dawsonct says..
"BTW, MOST people in the top 1% "EARNED" their money the old-fashioned way, they inherited it."
and they grew it in the stock market...
as for those cell phones you see in the ER...
a good many of them are handed out to the indigent and homeless with a limited number of minutes for free...
and those satellite dishes...
you may not have noticed but free television is rapidly becoming a thing of the past...
hubby recently spent big bucks on equipment so his mother could keep hers
satellite would have been cheaper
it does come in small packages as well as larger..
but it was the principle of the thing for her.
drive by observation often leads one to erroneous conclusions
satellite packages come in small sizes as well as big
So you are saying that low income people have those things because they get them for free. Sure. You make a lot of assumptions after just getting on someone elses case for doing the same.
What about all those people on food stamps who were turning them in for cash? The perfect example of people screwing the system. To me they are no different than the Madoffs of the world. Leaching off others.
1.) I admit, I was thinking of a $25 co-pay, not insurance, and got my typing mixed up. But those in the ER freeloading off the system don't even pay the $25 co-pay...they pay zero!
2.) Apocryphal - I didn't know, so I googled it.
3.) Are they handing out iphones at these shelters? Great point JoB, I'm sure that's what it is...you got me! (See point #2)
4.) We do need to help people who can't help themselves, that goes without saying. However, nobody addressed my point that cell phones, satellites, tvs, tattoos, cigarettes...these are items purchased with the money that the "poor" people have left over after your tax money covers all of their other expenses. I don't think you are betraying your liberal ideals to agree that there is massive fraud/abuse/waste in our social programs. It just requires some intillectual honesty. Anybody? Anybody?
Anybody?
Crickets.
Welll Job... please do tell what "type" of retirement account did you have? I want to avoid the type where you actually "lost" money, that was taken and by someone else. Now, if you are referring to some speculative instrument, like a 401K mutual fund... you know that never happened. Buying and holding stuff hoping it goes up in value .. that's not lost income, or lost anything. It's a speculation that didn't materialize. No if someone actually got into your savings account or private bank box and took a bearer bond, Treasury, or something of the like, that is stealing. 401K's were designed to give the illusion of wealth, until ya sell em.. they aren't squat.
Bostonman...I agree with you somewhat regarding those selling their food stamp cards for cash. But..that's a handful of people compared to how many get them, and we must remember to not paint everyone with the same brush. In almost any system, there are people who will take advantage. That doesn't mean that they are all bad because they are in the system.
JV? Intellectual honesty goes for everyone. There are those in that top 1% who are just, if not more so, intellectually dishonest..like when they preach about trickling it down to the rest of society? Dishonest is a kind word for that. So, again...let's not paint all with the same brush.Being "poor" does not make one a special part of society where you are restricted to do, or not do, certain things. Oh? You're poor? No TV and cigs for you ! Oh? You're poor? Oh, I'm so sorry...no phone calls for you..see how silly it sounds? Maybe we should just give them a giant black "P" to wear, so we'll know when they're doing something we don't approve of.
And, just an aside? How do you know that they're not paying the $25 copay (if that's really not just a made up number)...do you have special access to their files?
this just in...
http://www.nwcn.com/news/Cost-of-living-in-Seattle-rises-13-the-last-two-years-132918668.html
Ya but its primarily due to healthcare and housing. If you are in a mortgage or lease they should have stayed the same. Healthcare...well it is what it is. You can elect to not pick it. I know we dropped my employer health insurance for my wife and kids because it was costing me $1400 a month out of pocket. We were able to pick up an independent policy much cheaper since we are all in great health.
I don't want to paint them all bad but I just want to point out that labeling the group as a whole is wrong. My boss (CEO) who is also a die hard democrat gave $24M to charity last year. I know because I review his taxes. He has already said if they raise his taxes 10% he will just chop it off charitable donations.
All of this is to keep income after taxes at a consistent amount. Does he really need $25M or so a year in after tax income to survive? I would hope not but who knows. Perfect example of how changing the rules for all people in a group could have drastic effects that are unforseen. Trickle down as you call it isn't just about giving back in cash to the middle class. It is also returned in charitable donations.
JanS, thank you for proving my point about intillectual honesty. You are so tied to your liberal dogma that you can't even bring yourself to say, "yes, there is waste/fraud/abuse in the system" without making it into an Evil Top 1% Class Warfare argument.
And I don't want to brand people, or remove anything from anybody. But if they can't afford the basic needs, how can they afford luxuries? Again, poor values.
Bostonian, I'm assuming your boss earned his money legally, so good for him! I think that he can spend $24M far better than the government can. Being a Democrat, his judgement may be a little suspect ;), but what he does with his money is not my business.
I want the economy to work well for all. Charitable donations are exemplary..but do we want a society based on "benevolence"? We are told time and time again that if we just allow the tax cuts for the wealthy, or een give them more, that it will benefit us all..and that, my friend, is a load of crap. That's what I'm referring to. I get perplexed at those who think "trickle down" simply means I want you to give some of your money to me. I don't want a handout. But I do want fairness in what we give back...and that mostly is in the form of taxes. I give charitably, too, when I can, and I can verify that one does not NEED anywhere near 25M a year to survive.
You must log in to post.
All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^
westseattleblog
West Seattle Blog
West Seattle Blog