The American dream? Top 20% pulling away from the rest, study finds

joG · Jun 13, 2017

backpacker said:
So you don't have an answer or are avoiding the answer because you realize your reliance on median household income left your back gate open.

As a person that taught statistics albeit a while back, I do remember, what a median household income is. I also recognize a slanted simplification and biased spin, when I see them.

Lafayette · Jun 13, 2017

backpacker said:
I am not showing my ignorance you are. As I have already pointed out, there are many ways to scale that fence and I did it from a position of near poverty

Yeah, right. Others call it "Massive Debt".

Call it whatever you want - regardless, like secondary-education it should be free, gratis and for nothing ...

ttwtt78640 · Jun 13, 2017

Lafayette said:
When 45% of the all high-school students will NOT obtain a post-secondary education, they are condemned to a comparative life of penury.

That statistical fact is corroborated by data from the Dept. of Education ...

Hmm... so the US poverty (life of penury?) rate should be 45% as opposed to 15%? It seems that the US ranks fairly well in the percentage of its degreed population and that only a handful of nations currently exceed it.

https://www.in.gov/che/files/DMatthews.pdf

DA60 · Jun 13, 2017

The solution is simple - reduce everyone's taxes BUT tax capital gains and income at the same rate, simplify the tax code, NEVER have the government (outside of a declared war) bail out ANY company/corporation, kill/neuter the Fed so all it does is try and maintain the inflation rate between 0-2% - but allow it NO OTHER POWER, balance the federal budget by cutting BOTH military and social spending drastically WITHOUT lowering the standard of living for the poor one iota.

This is not easy...but it is also not complicated.

You do these things - you may not stop the rich from getting richer...but you will stop the government from helping them to get richer by taking money from the middle class/future Americans and giving it to the rich...which is what is happening now.

Drastically increasing taxation of the rich will do nothing but two things: empower the rich to find more ways to hide their income (and they WILL succeed - they always do) and/or watching the wealthy take their assets and investments offshore...which helps America not at all.

backpacker · Jun 13, 2017

joG said:
As a person that taught statistics albeit a while back, I do remember, what a median household income is. I also recognize a slanted simplification and biased spin, when I see them.

There is nothing slanted about it. The bottom largely doesn't even work and all that welfare and government benefits they haul in are not counted as income to hide the fact that the cost of those benefits exceed what the average American worker makes.

James972 · Jun 13, 2017

backpacker said:
There is nothing slanted about it. The bottom largely doesn't even work and all that welfare and government benefits they haul in are not counted as income to hide the fact that the cost of those benefits exceed what the average American worker makes.

this is very true, the poverty numbers don't count the programs designed to alleviate the poverty. If they did the liberals would out of business! They always need to cripple new people with new programs to buy votes. The idea that people who get state of the art medical housing education food and retirement that they could not afford in a million years are poor is pure lunacy. If these people are poor what are people in India Africa and China??

James972 · Jun 13, 2017

Lafayette said:
THE HIGH COST OF A TERTIARY EDUCATION IN AMERICA

It's not just about you, you, you. It's about us, us, us. Which is what "you don't get"!

And as for "scaling the fence", consider this report from WikiPedia, here - excerpt:

That fence is getting higher and higher every year!

And from here: A Look at the Shocking Student Loan Debt Statistics for 2017 - excerpt:

The average student debt loan in 2012 was $27K. Today it is 37.2K and climbing ...

PS: In Europe, post-secondary education is mostly government-subsidized. For instance, for France (from which I write and source here):

MY POINT?

When you privatize a normally public expense (education), then you place its obtention beyond the reach of ordinary people. Thereby incarcerating them in lives of below average income levels ...

oh good first food, clothing, shelter, medical care and k-12 were pubic expenses, now this liberal wants more, but wait is this the only thing he wants more of or is he a typical liberals who always wants more and more of everything with no end in sight? When Obama took over govt was bigger than ever and he made it far bigger still and now Sanders wants to make it far bigger still. Lets make these treasonous liberals illegal as our Founders did with a Constitution that strictly limited the power and scope of government!!

Lafayette · Jun 14, 2017

Ahlevah said:
Well, it helps to have access to intelligence. People whose elevator stops short of the top floor will tend to have a harder time making a living in an economy that increasingly places a premium on brainpower:

The education elevator takes you to wherever you push the button. And for Tertiary Level education that button is simply too high due to inflated costs.

We need to subsidize state-schools to offer a post-secondary level of education for the sorts of skills that customers in our newly arrived Information Age expect of them - at very low individual cost (not more than $1500 per year) ...

NB: This subvention is an idea that Hillary adopted from Bernie's platform (applying to all families earning $100K annually); and in our consummate ignorance we refused by electing Donald Dork who could care less about Tertiary Education.

Lafayette · Jun 14, 2017

ludin said:
another post from you that doesn't understand how our economy or banking system works. Income disparity is nothing more than an appeal to emotion argument.]

If you knew the least bit about Income Disparity, your response would be far more intelligent.

Here, for you, is a bit less emotion - rather some factual evidence.

Income Disparity derives from the fact that less total Income goes to the lowest-paid groups. At the moment, and since there is No Minimum Wage in the US, that group is working at around 7$ an hour - or $14.6K per year. Pittance!

When's the last time YOU worked for $15K a year?

The average wage at Macdonalds is $10 an hour ($19.2K a year). That's $4K less than the Poverty Threshold for a family of four. How would YOU like to work for those wages and bring up two kids ... ?

ludin · Jun 14, 2017

Lafayette said:
If you knew the least bit about Income Disparity, your response would be far more intelligent.

Again if you understand our banking system and how the federal reserve operates then actually it is highly intelligent.

Here, for you, is a bit less emotion - rather some factual evidence.
Income Disparity derives from the fact that less total Income goes to the lowest-paid groups. At the moment, and since there is No Minimum Wage in the US, that group is working at around 7$ an hour - or $14.6K per year. Pittance!

Well there is minimum wage it is 7.25. again that has nothing to do with income disparity. Minimum wage is the lowest amount paid to the lowest skill job.

When's the last time YOU worked for $15K a year?

When I was just out of high school only I was making 5.15 part time but again that has nothing to do with income disparity.
you are arguing wages.

The average wage at Macdonalds is $10 an hour ($19.2K a year). That's $4K less than the Poverty Threshold for a family of four. How would YOU like to work for those wages and bring up two kids ... ?

So again you didn't argue anything about income disparity but wages.

as I said before you once again prove that you don't understand our economy so let me correct you.

Income disparity is some arbitrary drawn line that says this is the difference of the money pool at a particular time.
it says this group of people have this much of the money pool.

The problem with this is that the money supply is not a zero sum game. it isn't like monopoly where one person can grab all the 1 dollar bills
and then there are no more 1 dollar bills.

It is the job of the fed to insure that exact thing doesn't happen. So as the demand for more money is required
the fed simply adds money to the pool to meet that demand. This doesn't affect inflation because there is a demand for the money.

So since we can add to the pool whenever we want income disparity is a non-issue.

now if you want to talk about wages that is a completely different issue altogether.

Lafayette · Jun 15, 2017

ludin said:
Again if you understand our banking system and how the federal reserve operates then actually it is highly intelligent..

Which means absolutely nothing. "It" (Income Disparity) is not determined by the FRB, but by taxation. And ours is one of the best for upper-incomes of any on earth. See here:

Need more be said ... ?

Lafayette · Jun 15, 2017

ludin said:
Well there is minimum wage it is 7.25. again that has nothing to do with income disparity. Minimum wage is the lowest amount paid to the lowest skill job.

You are showing your ignorance of economics.

Wages have EVERYTHING to do with Income Disparity on the low end of the pay-scale. (Taxation at the high-end.)

It's dead simple. Learn the basics ...

ludin · Jun 15, 2017

Lafayette said:
Which means absolutely nothing. "It" (Income Disparity) is not determined by the FRB, but by taxation. And ours is one of the best for upper-incomes of any on earth. See here:

Need more be said ... ?

that you honestly still have no idea what income disparity is.
taxation has nothing to do with income disparity.

Your chart is a load of bull. The US has a top marginal rate of 39.6%.

however since your are not arguing income disparity and a whole bunch of nonsense I will say that again
you really don't know what you are talking about.

Lafayette · Jun 15, 2017

ludin said:
taxation has nothing to do with income disparity.

Your chart is a load of bull. The US has a top marginal rate of 39.6%.

From the OECD: Income Inequality

Income is defined as household disposable income in a particular year. It consists of earnings, self-employment and capital income and public cash transfers; income taxes and social security contributions paid by households are deducted. The income of the household is attributed to each of its members, with an adjustment to reflect differences in needs for households of different sizes.

Income inequality among individuals is measured here by five indicators. The Gini coefficient is based on the comparison of cumulative proportions of the population against cumulative proportions of income they receive, and it ranges between 0 in the case of perfect equality and 1 in the case of perfect inequality.

And thus.

So why, pray tell, should the US be at 0.397 whilst countries like Finland and the Netherlands are between 0.25 and 0.28?

The facts are just a waste of time with people like you ...

James972 · Jun 15, 2017

Lafayette said:
Which means absolutely nothing. "It" (Income Disparity) is not determined by the FRB, but by taxation. And ours is one of the best for upper-incomes of any on earth. See here:

Need more be said ... ?

since USA leads the world in new inventions (70% of all recent medical patents for example) and thus gives away or invents the world's health care and supplies the world's drugs below cost and since we are the world's policeman and savior etc etc the world should copy our tax policy and economy. Let's copy Europe when an average country like France has the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state!!Even Krugman admits the European economy has long had Eurosclerous!!

Ahlevah · Jun 16, 2017

Lafayette said:
The education elevator takes you to wherever you push the button.

It takes some people to wherever they push the button. Others can't seem to make it past the lobby or even the basement. Not everyone can be a software engineer, and we already have enough psychology, communications, and marketing majors.

Lafayette said:
And for Tertiary Level education that button is simply too high due to inflated costs.

I've noticed a trend: the more something is subsidized by government, the more expensive it gets for everyone else, whether it's in education, housing, medical care, or whatever.

Lafayette said:
We need to subsidize state-schools to offer a post-secondary level of education for the sorts of skills that customers in our newly arrived Information Age expect of them - at very low individual cost (not more than $1500 per year) ...

When has the cost of anything government subsidized been low? I mean, if you're poor you can get high-speed Internet for ten bucks a month, but how about everyone else? Or do they just get the bill?

Lafayette · Jun 17, 2017

Ahlevah said:
When has the cost of anything government subsidized been low?

This is tantamount to "bitching-in-a-blog".

I post below the comparative cost of two of the most important elements of any nation - Health Care and Tertiary Education:

First HealthCare:

Tertiary Education:
See here.

In both categories, the US is at the higher-end of costs.

For countries where both are subsidized by the state, they are much, much less expensive. Whyzat? Because neither Education nor Health Care are fundamentally competitive "industries" where pricing structures depend upon volume-dependent unit-costs subject to the production Experience Curve! Period.

Meaning what? This:
*As regards Health Care, note on the above info-graphic that not only do Americans pay more than European countries for HealthCare but they also live a life-span 3-years less.
*As regards education, a Tertiary Education (that prepares students for "decent-jobs at a decent payscale") must be a federally subsidized at state post-secondary educational institutions. Just like we did at the beginning of the 20th century for primary and secondary schooling!

Do you really think Donald Dork and his Replicants give a damn about either of the two above necessities (for a decent life-style in any developed country)?

Nope. Nevahhh ...

Ahlevah · Jun 20, 2017

Lafayette, graphs like the one you posted are almost useless for the purpose of comparing a society like ours with individual nations such as those within the EU. For example, to what degree is the quality of medical care a factor in mitigating the leading cause of death among Americans below the age of 50, drug overdose? We have a lot of people meeting untimely ends to criminal activity. (Murder victims in Chicago undoubtedly don't live as long as the average resident of, say, Luxembourg or Japan, where homicide rates are low.) How much will spending on healthcare prolong the lives of lethargic, fat Americans? (More fish and fewer steaks seem to help the Japanese and Norwegians.) Also, what is the cost of health care in the U.S. private sector versus the public sector? There is a lot of waste and fraud in government-operated programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. You basically have a government-operated single-payer system for old folks, but it's rapidly coming to the point where it's going to bankrupt the country. Americans have also spent decades subsidizing the world with drugs paid for by the American taxpayer (through research performed by the National Institutes of Health and various public-sponsored universities). Don't think we don't notice the big European pharmaceutical companies with research campuses congregated near American colleges and universities.

Lafayette · Jun 21, 2017

Ahlevah said:
Lafayette, graphs like the one you posted are almost useless for the purpose of comparing a society like ours with individual nations such as those within the EU.

You are denying the research in the matter. Nice try.

But try harder. Find the research that refutes what I have posted.

I frankly don't know where you live, but I suspect its Israel. So, your problem is with the Israeli constitution. From here: The International law of human rights and constitutional law: a case study ...

Lafayette · Jun 21, 2017

Ahlevah said:
Also, what is the cost of health care in the U.S. private sector versus the public sector? There is a lot of waste and fraud in government-operated programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. You basically have a government-operated single-payer system for old folks, but it's rapidly coming to the point where it's going to bankrupt the country.

BS. Pathetic BS.

What's going to bankrupt the economy is the massive expenditures on DoD - See here:

Not a wee-bit of which goes to support Israel's Defense forces, I might add. See here: [URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/united-states-israel-memorandum-of-understanding-military-aid/500192/"]Why Does the United States Give So Much Money to Israel? - excerpt:

The United States and Israel have made it official: The two countries signed a new 10-year military-assistance deal on Wednesday, representing the single largest pledge of its kind in American history. The pact, laid out in a Memorandum of Understanding, will be worth $38 billion over the course of a decade, an increase of roughly 27 percent on the money pledged in the last agreement, which was signed in 2007. The diplomatic and military alliance between the two countries is longstanding: Even prior to this week, Israel was, according to the Congressional Research Service, “the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II.” In many ways, Wednesday’s deal seemed predestined*.

Click to expand...

Just lop-off a third of the Defense Budget and apply it to a National HealthCare System (including post-retirement) and the money will be better spent for all the people. After all, that's where it came from to begin with ... !

*Israeli defense is not a primary American objective in the middle-east. Israel has a damn fine economy and can pay for its military needs all by itself. We should not be spending that money for as long as Israel continues to build illegal housing in the Occupied Territory of the West Bank!

Fenton · Jun 21, 2017

Lafayette said:
From the Guardian: The American dream? Top 20% pulling away from the rest, study finds

Once again, America's problem of Income Disparity is rearing its ugly head in the news. This was brought about by Reckless Ronnie, in the 1980s, who fundamentally changed Upper-income Taxation. (See infographic here.)

Aside from changing taxation rates, what is definitively required is Hillary's platform promise (borrowed from Bernie) that free Tertiary Education must be made available to all comers at state schools by means of Federal subventions ...

An appeal to emotion used by Left wing demagogues to impress naive Liberals. Bernie Sanders is all over this, and its nonsense.

Lafayette · Jun 22, 2017

Fenton said:
An appeal to emotion used by Left wing demagogues to impress naive Liberals. Bernie Sanders is all over this, and its nonsense.

The usual blah, blah, blah from a Rabidly Right agitator devoid of any good-sense or compassion ...

James972 · Jun 26, 2017

Lafayette said:
Just lop-off a third of the Defense Budget

good idea!!! we could take it from the missile defense programs racing to defend us against N. Korean and Iranian nuclear attack!!

Lafayette · Jun 27, 2017

Ahlevah said:
It takes some people to wherever they push the button. Others can't seem to make it past the lobby or even the basement. Not everyone can be a software engineer, and we already have enough psychology, communications, and marketing majors.

True, but the tertiary-education edifice (that requires a secondary-school diploma for entry) starts with Vocational Training found on the first-floor.

No need for an elevator - it's a walk-up ...

Lafayette · Jun 27, 2017

Ahlevah said:
Lafayette, graphs like the one you posted are almost useless for the purpose of comparing a society like ours with individual nations such as those within the EU.

If you have a better tool for describing the situation of any economic problem/challenge, then do show it. I, for one, would be pleased to see it.

Putting up valid data, regardless of how or why it was established, is a starting point. Yes, I've been in economics long enough to know that "statistics" can be gathered in any number of ways. But whend done by bonafide economists that means two things:
*They are not necessarily exact, but
*They are rarely wholly wrong.

Prove me wrong. All you offer are suppositions ...

The American dream? Top 20% pulling away from the rest, study finds

Sometimes wrong